LOVESTYLES AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

By

Hilton Rudnick

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MAGISTER ARTIUM

in

PSYCHOLOGY

in the

FACULTY OF ARTS

at the

RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY

SUPERVISOR: DR H.G. PRETORIUS

1997 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to the following people:

My mother Fay for her unconditional love and for ensuring my secure attachment, then and now.

Colleen, my partner, who showed me how to turn the theory of love into the practise of loving, but still refuses to reveal her lovestyle.

My son Caleb, who is love personified, and who daily gives me the following advise "Goh der daddy". I'm still going.

My supervisor, mentor and friend Dr Gertie Pretorius, who was always ready when I was ready.

My siblings Marcia and Michael who helped create my idyllic childhood.

My lifelong friend Pierre who has always been there with support, encouragement and most of all belief.

Rod Charlton for his ongoing motivation and Jenny Charlton sure made who there were grammatical none, errors.

Ezelle Theron for help with the translation.

My fellow students for an awe-inspiring M.A. year.

Professor Mike Bendixon who assisted me with the statistics.

The participants who filled out questionnaires.

All romantics, everywhere.

This study is dedicated to, and in memory of my late father Issy Rudnick who I still love and miss.

ii OP SOMMING

Die studie stel ondersoek in na watter tipes liefde die grootste bevrediging binne die huwelik bied. Hoewel sosiale antropolod daarop wys dat die menslike gesin reeds honderdduisende jare lank bestaan, is die studie van wat dit is wat spesifieke pare mense bymekaarbring (of maatseleksie) 'n relatief onlangse veld. Vir die grootste deel van hierdie ontsaglike tydsverloop was die pragmatisme van lewe en oorlewing die belangrikste faktore wat bepaal het hoe spesifieke mans en vroue byeengekom het om verbintenisse as pare te smee. Dit is stellig slegs in die kontemporere geskiedenis dat liefde na yore getree het as 'n belangrike bydraende faktor in die vorming van pare en as 'n kriterium vir die huwelik. Evolusiesielkundiges gee te kenne dat liefde deels ontstaan het om hierdie pareverbintenisse meer doeltreffend verenig te hou en sodoende die oorlewing van afstammelinge in die besonder en die spesie in die algemeen te verseker. Modernisasie het baie veranderinge aan die lewende omgewing en sosiale waardes teweeggebring wat huweliksverhoudinge nie ongeskonde gelaat het nie. In die jongste tyd het wetenskaplikes vrae begin vra oor die interne meganismes van verhoudings. 'n Verskeidenheid modelle is ontwikkel in 'n poging om antwoorde hierop te vind.

In hierdie studie word drie modelle kortliks ondersoek, naamlik:

Sternberg se Driehoeksmodel wat aanvoer dat passie, intimiteit en beslissing/verbintenis die belangrikste komponente van liefde is. Die verskillende kombinasies waarin dit in 'n verhouding teenwoordig is, bepaal die tipe liefde wat ervaar word.

Die Gehegtheidsteoriemodel wat daarop aanspraak maak dat die bande wat tussen suigelinge en hulle sorgdraers gevorm word, die prototipe van latere liefdesbande word. Dit word verder in drie hooftipes verdeel, naamlik geborge, ontwykend of angstig/ambivalent.

iii * Die Evolusieteoriemodel van liefde wat die kollig plaas op inherente biologiese meganismes en verklaar dat die take wat omvat word in die keuse van 'n maat hoofsaaklik toegespits is op voortplanting, waar mans en vroue gelykgerigte maar verskillende maatstawwe het.

Die hoofmodel wat in hierdie studie ondersoek word, is die Liefdeskleuremodel van J.A. Lee. Lee voer aan dat liefde ten beste beskou word as a veeldimensionele tipologie van style. Die drie (primere) style is:

Eros — hartstogtelik, sensueel, idealisties, eerlik en intens Storge — vriendskapsgebaseer, gemaklik, tydsaam, stabiel Ludus — strategies, veelvoudige geselle, bedrieglik, liefde as 'n spel

Die drie sekondere style is kombinasies van die primere style, naamlik:

Mania — Eros + Ludus — obsessief, besitlik en vol kwellinge Pragma — Storge + Ludus — inkopielysoefening van voorkeurmaatstawwe Agape — Storge + Eros — onbaatsugtig en dienend, 'n soort aanbiddende toewyding

Lee hou voor dat liefdestyle nie vaste eienskappe is nie maar van verhouding tot verhouding kan verskil, of binne dieselfde verhouding met verloop van tyd kan verander. Heelwat navorsing is gedoen om Lee se model te probeer staaf. Die werking van liefdestyle is bestudeer in 'n verskeidenheid van kontekste, waaronder hulle verband met geslag, konflikhantering en siening van seks.

Die studie maak gebruik van die Liefdeshoudingskaal en Tweetalaanpassingskaal om antwoorde op sekere navorsingsvrae te vind. Die vrae is: Sal die liefdestyl van een gade bepalend weer ten opsigte van die huweliksbevrediging van die ander gade?

iv Kan 'n bepaalde kombinasie van liefdestyle in verband gebring word met huweliksbevrediging? Is mans meer geneig om ludus te wees? Is vroue meer geneig om storge, pragma of agape te wees? Het verhoudings die neiging om met verloop van tyd storge te word? Is daar 'n verband tussen standvastige huwelike en groter bevrediging?

Die resultate van die studie toon dat indien of die man Of die vrou eros of agape is, die gade waarskynlik goed aangepas sal wees in die huwelik. Indien een van die twee egter ludus is, sal die verhouding waarskynlik daaronder ly. Sekere kombinasies van liefdestyle in pare blyk bevorderlik vir huweliksbevrediging te wees, veral in gevalle waar beide vennote agape is. Geen aanduidings is gevind dat mans meer gened is om ludus te wees nie. Vroue het eweneens nie geblyk meer agapies, stogies of pragmies as mans te wees nie. Dan was geen aanduidings dat langdurige verhoudings storgies is nie en hulle gaan ook nie gepaard met groter aanpassing in pare se verhoudings nie.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Title i Acknowledgements ii Opsomming iii Table of Contents vi List of Tables xi List of Figures xii Annexures xiii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION.

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Mate Selection 2 1.2.1 The Criteria of Early Humans 2 1.2.2 The Criteria of Modern Humans 3

1.3 Changes in the Modern Marriage 4 1.3.1 Romance 4 1.3.2 The Permissive Society 4 1.3.2.1 Premarital cohabitation 6 1.3.2.2 Transience in Marriage 6

1.4 Motivation and Aims of Study 7 1.4.1 Aims of Study 8

CHAPTER 2 - MODELS OF LOVE.

2 Introduction 9

2.1 Sternbergs's Triangular Model 9 2.1.1 The Triangle of Love 9 2.1.2 Combinations of the Components 12 2.1.2.1 Absence of all Components - Nonlove 12 2.1.2.2 Intimacy - Liking 12 2.1.2.3 Passion - Infatuated Love 12 2.1.2.4 Decision/Commitment - Empty Love 13 2.1.2.5 Intimacy and Passion - Romantic Love 13 2.1.2.6 Intimacy and Commitment - Companionate Love 14 2.1.2.7 Passion and Commitment - Fatuous Love 14 2.1.2.8 Intimacy and Passion and Commitment - Consumate Love 14 2.1.3 Changes in the Components through Time 14

vi 2.1.4 Triangle Structure 15 2.1.5 Sternberg's Triangle in Research 17 2.1.5.1 Comparing Triangle Perceptions 17 2.1.5.2 Other Examinations of Sternberg's Theory 18

2.2 The Attachment Theory of Love 20 2.2.1 Introduction 20 2.2.2 Infant Attachment 21 2.2.2.1 Attachment Types 22 2.2.3 Adult Attachment 22 2.2.3.1 Attachment Style and Romantic Experiences 23 2.2.3.1.1 Secure Style 23 2.2.3.1.2 Insecure Styles 24 2.2.3.2 Working Models of Attachment 25 2.2.3.3 Cross-generational Attachment 25 2.2.3.4 Caregiving in Infants and Adults 26 2.2.4 Predicting Adult Relationships using Attachment Style 27 2.2.5 Relationship Quality and Attachment Style 28 2.2.6 Other Criticisms 29 2.2.7 Conclusion 31

2.3 The Evolutionary Model of Love 33 2.3.1 Introduction 33 2.3.1.1 Division of Roles 34 2.3.1.2 The Origins of Love 34 2.3.1.3 The Tasks of Love 35 2.3.1.3.1 Resource Display 36 2.3.1.3.2 Exclusivity 37 2.3.1.3.3 Love Actions - A modern test 37 2.3.2 Mate Selection 38 2.3.2.1 Ancestral Trends in Modern Times 39 2.3.2.2 Sexual Strategies 40 2.3.2.2.1 Mating Preferences 40 2.3.2.3 Common Gender Concerns 42 2.3.2.3.1 Identifying a Good Reciprocal Ally 42 2.3.2.3.2 Identifying Someone who is Committed 43 2.3.2.3.3 Identifying a Mate with Good Parenting Skills 43 2.3.2.4 Other Dimensions of Mate Selection 43 2.3.3 Evolution, Marriage and Divorce 44 2.3.3.1 Ancient Nurturing Unions 45 2.3.3.2 Marriage Dissolution 45 2.3.3.2.1 Adultery 45 2.3.3.2.2 Sterility 46 2.3.3.3 Love and Procreation 46 2.3.4 Conclusion 46

vii CHAPTER 3 - LEE'S MODEL OF LOVE.

3.1 Introduction 48

3.2 The Lovestyles 49 3.2.1 Eros 49 3.2.2 Storge 50 3.2.3 Ludus 51 3.2.4 Mania - Eros + Ludus 52 3.2.5 Pragma - Storge + Ludus 52 3.2.6 Agape - Storge + Eros 53

3.3 Lovestyle Combinations 54

3.4 Further Research 55 3.4.1 Lovestyles and Gender 55 3.4.2 Lovestyles and the Process of Love 56 3.4.3 Lovestyles: Trait or Attitude 57 3.4.4 Lovestyles across Cultures 59 3.4.5 Lovestyles and other Correlates 61 3.4.5.1 Lovestyles and Life Satisfaction 61 3.4.5.2 Lovestyles and Conflict Handling 61 3.4.5.3 Lovestyles and Sexual Attitudes 62 3.4.6 Lovestyles and other Love Measures 62 3.4.6.1 Lovestyles and Attachment 62 3.4.7 Lovestyles and Relationship Satisfaction 63 3.4.7.1 Relationship Qualities 64 3.4.7.2 Relationship Satisfaction 65 3.4.7.3 Marriage and Lovestyles 65 3.4.7.4 Existential Love Qualities 66

3.5 Conclusion 67

CHAPTER 4 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

4.1 Introduction 68

4.2 Research Design 68

4.3 Subjects 69

4.4 Procedure 69

4.5 Measuring Instruments 70 4.5.1 The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) 70 4.5.2 The Love Attitude Scale (LAS) 72

4.6 Hypotheses 74

4.7 Statistical Measures 75

viii CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS .

5.1 Introduction 76

5.2 Descriptive Statistics 76

5.3 Hypothesis 1 - Male Lovestyle and Female Dyadic Adjustment 79

5.4 Hypothesis 2 - Female Lovestyle and male Dyadic Adjustment 80

5.5 Hypothesis 3 - Couple Lovestyle and Dyadic Adjustment 82

5.6 Hypothesis 4 - Prevalence of Ludus by Gender 84

5.7 Hypothesis 5 - Prevalence of Selected Styles by Gender 85

5.8 Hypothesis 6 86 5.8.1 Hypothesis 6a - Duration and Storge 86 5.8.2 Hypothesis 6b - Duration and Dyadic Adjustment 86

CHAPTER 6 - DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

6.1 Introduction 88

6.2 Hypotheses 1 and 2 - Lovestyle and Dyadic Adjustment by Gender 88

6.3 Hypothesis 3 - Lovestyle and Dyadic Adjustment by Couples 89

6.4 Hypothesis 4 - Prevalence of Ludus by Gender 91

6.5 Hypothesis 5 - Prevalence of Selected Styles by Gender 92

6.6 Hypothesis 6 92 6.6.1 Duration and Storge 92 6.6.2 Duration and Dyadic Adjustment 92

6.7 Conclusion 93

ix CHAPTER 7 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 7.1 Introduction 94 7.2 Limitations of the Study 94 7.3 Discussion of Findings 95 7.4 Commonality of Models 97 7.5 Recommendations for Further Research 99 7.6 Final Word 100

Reference List 102

Annexures I

x LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Attachment style, caregiving and sexuality 27 Table 3.1 Lovestyles and Personality Correlates 59 Table 5.1 Cross-tabulation of male and female lovestyles 77 Table 5.2 Frequency table for male and female lovestyles 79 Table 5.3 Male lovestyle correlated to female dyadic adjustment 80 Table 5.4 Female lovestyle correlated to male dyadic adjustment 81 Table 5.5 Male dyadic adjustment correlated to female dyadic adjustment 81 Table 5.6 Same lovestyle / combination lovestyle analysis of variance with female dyadic adjustment 83 Table 5.7 Same lovestyle / combination lovestyle analysis of variance with male dyadic adjustment 83 Table 5.8 Male ludus mean compared with female ludus mean 84 Table 5.9 Comparison of male and female frequencies of agape and storge 85 Table 5.10 Duration of marriage correlated to storge 86 Table 5.11 Duration of Marriage correlated to Dyadic Adjustment 87

xi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Sternberg Love Triangle: Core element of Passion 16 Figure 3.1 The Lovestyle Palette 54

xii ANNEXURES

Annexure A Original Love Attitude Scale I Annexure B English Cover Sheet and Love Attitude Scale IV Annexure C English Dyadic Adjustment Scale VIII Annexure D Dekbrief Liefdeshoudingskaal XII Annexure E Die Verhoudingsaanpassingskaal XVI Dr. Aubrey Richards, an anthropologist who lived among the Bemba of Zambia in the 1930's, once related to a group of them an English folk tale about a young prince who climbed glass mountains, crossed chasms, and fought dragons, all to obtain the hand of a maiden he loved. The Bemba were plainly bewildered, but remained silent. Finally an old chief spoke up, voicing the feelings of all present in the simplest of questions. "Why not take another girl 7" he asked.

Morton Hunt - "The Natural History of Love".

xiv Chapter 1 - Introduction and Motivation.

Love doesn't solve everything. I just think it does.

Lois Wyse

1.1 Introduction The family as an institution has endured since primitive times. Quale (1988) indicates that consorts of kinship bands were almost certainly well established up to 2 million years ago by Homo erectus in Africa. These bands would most likely have paired into fairly monogamous partnerships mainly for survival logistics, and with well defined "traditional" roles. That is, the man would hunt, the woman would gather food and nurture the young. Through a combination of natural forces (conjugation) and convenience (hunting, nurturing), the development of pair- bonding became entrenched. This would have created a relatively secure environment for offspring to be fostered, and within pair-bonds and kinship bands, the young would have stood a greater chance of surviving. In effect primitive economics played an important role in family development, and not surprisingly, according to most authorities including Gittins (1985) and Quale (1988) economics remains one of the major components of the marriage institution today.

Undeniably the world is immeasurably different now than it was when Homo erectus sought his mate. Yet pair-bonding has survived as has the nuclear family, albeit with many variations (Berardo, 1990). The functions and structures of the family have changed in harmony with the social forces which have shaped complex modern living environments. For example families have adapted to current mortality rates. Quale (1988) notes that life expectancy amongst the Neanderthals was about 35 years, remarkably similar to what it was some 35000 years later in England, where Gittins (1985) records it as being 32 years at the end of the 18th century. Figures for the white South African population are much the same, and show a similar steady increase in life expectancy until by 1981 a white

1 South African could statistically expect to live to about 70 years of age (The Central Statistical Services of South Africa, 1986). Life expectancy has thus about doubled this century, a change which has impacted on a myriad of social institutions. Gittins (1985) elucidates how families and marriages have changed in modern times. He notes that an average couple who marry at an average age and have average life expectancies, will be together for about 35 years longer currently, than they would have 200 years ago, and for the 35000 years before then. Importantly then, marriages were generally shorter in line with lower life expectancies. A century ago it was also common for children of these marriages not to survive into adulthood, and since lifespans were so much shorter, they rarely knew their grandparents. It was common for a parent to die before the children were adults, and thus families were often reconstituted with a non-biological parent and step-siblings. Family bonds were thus battered around far more than would be common today. In all, the past century or two has seen rapid changes to the forces which act on families, with little hint that changes are slowing down. The modern family has not had the luxury of several generations to take stock and adapt to the crush of new dynamics which have enfolded contemporary society. The family as an institution appears to have been buffeted severely in a relatively short time, and it is telling to explore what has really changed. This can be achieved firstly by examining how mate selection has evolved, and secondly by looking at recent researched changes to modern marriages.

1.2 Mate Selection 1.2.1 The Criteria of Early Humans It is interesting to examine how primitive individuals would have chosen their mates. Quale (1988) speculates with reasonable certainty, that mate selection has been going on for about 100,000 years, that is since the earliest humans (Homo Sapiens Neanderthals). She suggests that choices would have obviously been contained within a limited geographic area, and would have revolved around a few main considerations: a) Compatibility - choosing a person you liked to be with.

2 Food supply - choosing a good hunter or gatherer or someone whose natal band was proficient in that area. Health - choosing a partner who came from healthy stock.

Although food supply and health might be considered fairly obvious criteria, it is reassuring that even with all the hardships encountered by early people, compatibility with a mate was still highly rated. This lays claim to primitive notions of attraction and affection, and serves notice for what was to follow. There can only be speculation regarding the nature of primitive courting, romance and love, yet it appears that current concerns with being a partner to the "right" person, does have a long history, and gives some indication of the energies which to this day, fuel the human spirit.

1.2.2 The Criteria of Modern Humans According to Buss and Barnes (1986), both men and women rated companionship, consideration, kindness and affection very highly (compatibility). Additionally, women ranked men who had good earning capacities, were ambitious and career oriented highly (food supply), while men sought women who were attractive (healthy) , good cooks and frugal (food supply). Both men and women also rated the importance of their partner's family background highly (health and food supply). Sprecher, Sullivan and Hatfield (1994) detail that in terms of the evolutionary theory and the sociocultural perspective, men tend to select in terms of the woman's reproductive traits (such as youth and attractiveness), while women tend to be attracted to men's potential resource acquisition (such as ambition and status). Therefore although the specifics have changed, there are notable similarities between mate selection across thousands of years. It seems then that although there have been radical changes to family infra-structure, internal drives and innate psychological selecting mechanisms remain largely intact.

3 An example of how the methodology for mate selection may changed, but the criteria stayed the same, is in the initial finding of potential partners. Ahuvia and Adelman (1992) offer some insight in their recent review of marriage markets. They note that a veritable industry has been built around introducing people through dating agencies. Moreover addition compared to the somewhat limited choices our ancestors were generally forced to make, based on tribe, locality and a small selection of the correct aged partners available, contemporary choices are notably different. The choices of who to meet, where and when to meet them, have escalated immeasurably in modern times.

1.3 Changes in the Modern Marriage Given this vast canvass of change and choice in social anthropology, it is useful to examine some of these changes which may have manifested in recent times. Although the concept of love appears to have been part of the human condition for thousands of years, as a criterion for marriage it is relatively new (Peele, 1988). At the same time modern times have brought modern concepts, amongst them has been a condoning of permissiveness not seen in any other recorded age. This has left its mark on many established institutions, of which those of marriage and the nuclear family are amongst the most important (Surra, 1990).

1.3.1 Romance Despite the practicalities of mate selection which appear to have existed for many thousands of years, there seems to have always been an element of something more emotional involved (Quale, 1988). Depending on the degree of intensity, this could, at its most insipid, have been compatibility or at the other end of the scale, love or romance. In recorded history, the time most associated with the inception of romance was during the 12th century and the writings concerning the knights of the round table. This was the beginning of "courtly love", which Rechtein and Fiedler (1989) discuss as being a projection of idealism onto the brave knight and the damsel in distress. The brave knights undertook dangerous journeys for the sake of love, and this idealistic notion of a perfect couple became

4 ingrained in the western psyche. However love and romance appear to be far older than 800 years, and there is considerable written evidence they existed at least 2500 years ago. For example Shaver, Havan and Bradshaw (1988) give an example of a poem that old, dealing with the very contemporary issue of unrequited love. Importantly however, despite the fact that physiological and emotional mechanisms of love have been an innately human characteristic for many thousands of years, it has only been relatively recently (the last 130 to 200 years) that love has asserted itself as a major ingredient of marital union and being "in love" has come to be seen as a necessary prerequisite for marriage (Berschied and Walster, 1978; Peele, 1988). Beall and Sternberg (1995) argue that although this is widely accepted in individualist cultures, collectivist cultures embrace other factors like how the person relates to the extended family. South Africa which is a hybrid of individualist and collectivist cultures, would therefore appear to house varying complicated sociological conceptions of marriage.

1.3.2 The Permissive Society Marriage is the socially sanctioned institution within which to conduct sexual relations and have children. The sexual revolution of the 1960's and the corresponding loosening of attitudes has however created significant shifts in the marriage market. The women's liberation movement changed many female attitudes regarding their dependency on men, and hence the economic factors of marrying are not as overtly prevalent. Surra's (1990) review of American relationships in the decade of the 1980's records a striking rise in the postponement of marriage by both sexes in favour of cohabitation. In South Africa this is equally true, where the number of whites "living together" increased by nearly 80% between 1985 and 1991 alone (Central Statistical Service, 1986, 1991). This section briefly examines the impact of premarital cohabitation and the increase in transient relationships on marriage.

5 1.3.2.1 Premarital cohabitation It is interesting to inquire what effect the propensity for premarital cohabitation has on the marriage institution. Surra (1990) indicates that it results in less stable marriages of shorter duration. She suggests that this is because people enter into this situation with less commitment than they would into a marriage. DeMaris and Leslie (1984) had however explored this issue and found that even if the commitment variable is controlled, cohabitors still presented with a reduced marital satisfaction.

Premarital cohabitation has only recently become an important factor in mate selection and has also contributed to the increase in the average marrying age (Surra, 1990). For many people it appears to offer some kind of marriage simulation and compatibility test. Yet research indicates that it offers just the opposite, as cohabitors tend to have less satisfying marriages. DeMaris and Leslie (1984) suggest that it is not the act of cohabiting which effects the marriage, but rather the kind of person who chooses to cohabit that produces the more precarious union.

1.3.2.2 Transience in Marriage A recent development is the range of options people are exposed to in their modern living environments. A comparison with any previous age shows that there has been an accelerated assault on the concept of "choice" in almost all respects. Individuals are bombarded daily by media campaigns exhorting the merits of one product over another. There are a plethora of options when buying a car, a house, detergents or even a loaf of bread. This culture of experimentation and expediency impacts on the consumer society as never before (Toffler, 1990). This culture of transience and impermanence has permeated even the most sacred institutions, like marriage. As the attitudes towards previously permanent partnerships become increasingly tentative, Glick (1988) notes that divorce and remarriage are increasingly becoming common currency. Berardo (1990) claims

6 that this is because families have had to be more resilient now than ever before. He points out that there have been increases in many "alternative" marriage and family types, such as single parents, househusbands, unmarried couples and childless unions, and suggests that contemporary concepts of individual independence and self-expression shift the emphasis away from familism to individualism, in line with the "me" generation. Notions of what constitutes a modern family are becoming highly flexible, with fluid parameters and evolving, loosely defined boundaries.

1.4 Motivation and Aims of Study Of late there has been an accelerated impetus in the study of marriage and its associated issues. A veritable deluge of research articles are regularly devoted to the topic, for example Hatfield and Sprecher (1986); Fincham and Bradbury (1987); Dion and Dion (1993); Kamo (1993). There has also been some recent South African research on marriage and mate selection, particularly Crous and Pretorius (1994). New books appear with striking regularity while instruments to measure aspects of relationships are readily available. These include Hendrick and Hendrick's Love Attitude Scale, Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and Rubin's Love Scale (Tzeng, 1993). Relationships, love and marriage are becoming increasingly measurable and as more questions become answered, researchers are able to unravel some of the complexity within the field. Adams (1988) looks back at fifty years of family research to discover that it has become increasingly scientific despite dealing with so-called "soft" variables like adjustment and attitudes. When even more elusive constructs like satisfaction, contentment and love are introduced, social scientists find that the terrain might be uncomfortably abstract. However, it is anticipated that as this domain, once only the estate of poets and philosophers becomes steadily more understood, it will bear fruit by answering questions which can then be profitably applied in many couple- counselling situations.

7 The concepts of mate selection, marriage and familial stability are at the heart of societal functioning. There are a myriad of variables that impact on these constructs, as is evident from Surra's (1990) decade review. Recent research has shed some light, albeit theoretical, on the reasons why two people form a marital dyad. Social scientists are thus slowly building a solid mass of knowledge relating to the entire process of how and why a couple eventually exist. This goes hand in hand with contemporary urgency, for the accelerating forces of career, sociological, psychological and economic pressures play havoc with older traditional values of stability and permanence in all these domains. Soaring divorce rates are only one symptom of couples and individuals buckling under these tremendous pressures. Clearly, whatever can be done to better understand the choices individuals make in forming marital dyads, can only be regarded as useful information. In the South African context, this type of research is similarly required. With the wealth of family and marriage research being done abroad, it is important to know if this information applies to South African couples. Thus the primary motivation for the study is to better understand the way South Africans love.

1.4.1 Aims of Study Lee's (1976) treatise is widely accepted as a valuable model of love. To date no work appears to have been done using this model in South Africa. The aims of this study thus are: To determine if there is any relationship between the various lovestyles and marital satisfaction for a South African sample. To examine several contemporary models of love.

8 Chapter 2. Models of Love.

2. Introduction Finding the "right person" to marry is part of the developmental psyche in western culture. Dating is the prevalent method of choice in experimenting with relationships and by the teenage years most people have begun to explore the complex dynamic of interacting with the opposite sex on a romantic level. Research has proposed various models of how the choices are made. The similarity model suggests that we select mates who are similar to us in one or various ways such as educational level, religion, interests, personality, intellect and so on (Wetzel and lnsko, 1982). The complementarity model of Reik (Mathes and Moore, 1985) holds that one falls in love with someone who has some important qualities which you lack. There are several variations on these themes. There are also counter themes like that of Lykken and Tellegen (1993) who consider that mate selection is far more random and unpredictable than we would have previously considered. In all there are several models which indicate how individuals form couples, and how the relationship these couples form then tend to proceed. This chapter presents an overview of three contemporary models.

2.1. Sternbergs's Triangular Model

"To love somebody is not just a strong feeling - it is a decision, it is a judgement, it is a promise"

Eric Fromm 2.1.1 The Triangle of Love Robert J. Sternberg conceptualised love as a triangle (Sternberg, 1988b), the three vertices representing the components of intimacy, passion and decision/commitment respectively. He emphasises that the use of a triangle is simply a metaphor which is easy to visualise and not a geometric model.

9 Although he acknowledges that the partitioning into these three components is to some extent academically expedient (Sternberg, 1986) he does justify the selection (Sternberg, 1988a) and lists several reasons why, viz.: The components appear to comprehensively include other aspects of love. The components are general across generations and cultures. The components are psychologically and logically distinct. The components seem to be consistent with other studies.

Intimacy : There are many feelings associated with " love", including feelings of warmth, tenderness and a close connection with the loved one. These feelings make up the intimacy component of love. In an earlier attempt to establish a general factor of love using factor analysis, Sternberg and Grajek (1984) concluded that an independent factor was unlikely and rather a set of correlated clusters or bonds was involved. They described the most important of these as (Sternberg, 1988b) : The lengths you would go to promote the welfare of your partner. The degree to which you experience happiness by being together. The high regard you have for each other as a couple. The extent to which you can count on each other. How well you understand each other. The sharing of your feelings, ideas and possessions. The giving and receiving of emotional support. Being able to share intensely private information. I) The value the loved one has in your life. Sternberg (1988a) notes that only some of these need to constitute an individual's paradigm of love, and that in reality there is a rather more indistinct composite feeling. Ironically he contends that intimacy, albeit a foundation of love, may constitute a threat in that with its increasing self-disclosures some individuals become vulnerable and threatened, and in addition feel in danger of being consumed by the other as their identity as an autonomous individual becomes compromised. He suggests that there is always a tension between

1 0 being intimate and being autonomous and that this tension is part of the dynamic of the relationship.

Passion: Sternberg's second component consists of the inner drives which result in being attracted to someone romantically, physically or sexually. Although many people choose to give expression to these drives outside of a loving relationship either with good intent or frivolously, Sternberg (1988a) focused predominantly on passion's presence in a love union, and sees it largely as a expression of needs and desires, for example needs of affiliation or dominance. He also emphasises that passion is not necessarily sexual but could be based on any number of aspects, for example an attraction to someone's power or intelligence.

Decision/Commitment: Sternberg's final component is the short term decision that someone makes that he loves someone, and the longer term commitment to maintain that love. Neither of these may be an overt cognition, but may exist on a more instinctual level, but at the same time, a short term decision does not necessarily imply a subsequent long-term commitment. A more mature love is however thought to contain both an initial overt decision and result in a longer term commitment. Sternberg (1988a) contends that it is the decision / commitment component that keeps relationships together during their difficult periods. A further complication may be the way the individuals interpret commitment, for whilst for one partner it may mean "stay together at all costs", for the other it may mean "stay together until it's not working".

In summary, Sternberg (1986) views passion as "hot" and derived mainly from the motivational involvement, intimacy as "warm" and deriving predominantly from emotional investment while decision/commitment is "cold" and derived largely from cognitive rationalisation. He also notes that the properties of the components are not uniform and that for example, whilst intimacy and decision/commitment are relatively stable, passion, being less controllable, is

11 less stable. In enduring love relationships intimacy and commitment play a larger and longer role than passion, though in a short relationship, the opposite is true.

2.1.2 Combinations of the Components It is not necessary that all three components exist in a love relationship, but rather that the various combinations define the nature of the union. Sternberg (1988b) realistically asserts that the component combinations define a conveniently discreet extreme and that the fine nuances of the extent of the different components add another dimension to the composite relationships. For example when a mixture of intimacy and passion is described, it is described as if both components are there in equal quantity, though this may not necessarily be the case. By combining the identified components on his triangle in their various ways , Sternberg (1988b) classified the eight possible types as follows:

2.1.2.1 Absence of all Components - Nonlove Most often relationships of this nature are the casual acquaintances who never enter into any meaningful relationship in one's life. There are no mutual expectations in the interactions between individuals as lives intersect in various functional ways, and few endeavours at more meaningful exchanges are sought.

2.1.2.2 Intimacy - Liking When the intimacy component exists on its own one experiences the bonds of a close friendship. Sternberg (1988b) emphasises that the term "liking" is not used frivolously in the way one would describe casual associate, but rather in the context of a substantial true friendship.

2.1.2.3 Passion - Infatuated Love When passion exists without intimacy or commitment, Sternberg (1988b) considers this to be an obsessive type of love. These relationships often begin suddenly, with a forceful chemical attraction and a high degree of arousal

12 between the partners. Sternberg considers it a problematic love in that it is based on idealisation rather than reality. There is a tendency for relationships of this nature to have brief durations, generally not lasting much longer than it takes for the participants to get to know each other. They are relationships prone to rapid highs and lows, tend to be somewhat asymmetrical and are particularly susceptible to distress.

2.1.2.4 Decision/Commitment - Empty Love If a love is void of passion or intimacy, relying only on decision, Sternberg (1988b) considers this to be a stagnant union. He describes it as being most commonly found as a latter phase of relationships which once had the additional ingredients for a more fulfilling union, but which succumbed to the ravages of neglect to result in a hollow relationship. Sternberg suggests that many relationships exist in this state for years, and it becomes increasingly difficult to renew the attraction, energy and emotional involvement of their early origins.

2.1.2.5 Intimacy and Passion - Romantic Love In these unions there are strong elements of both physical and emotional involvement. Sternberg (1988a) sees both components as fuelling each other, yet without the element of commitment, the participants view the relationship in a more transitory way, or perhaps have not yet considered the relationship's existence in the broader context of their future lives. Although passion may draw people together initially, intimacy usually develops more slowly and helps cement and hence sustain the relationship in the course of time. On the other hand, the relationships may be terminal from the outset and exist purely to fill a function in each partner's phase of life. Romantic love has a reasonably substantial foundation, and may develop into something more permanent, or dissolve as its consorts move onto other things.

13 2.1.2.6 Intimacy and Commitment - Companionate Love Sternberg (1988b) also associates this type as a phase of marriage which may occur once the attraction has abated. In addition he suggests that most enduring love relationships eventually become companionate love. For some this type of relationship is not worth maintaining and extra-marital affairs replace the missing romance, while others enjoy this phase as an enhanced mature dimension of their union.

2.1.2.7 Passion and Commitment - Fatuous Love Relationships of this nature, lacking the vital ingredient of intimacy are regarded by Sternberg (1988b) as foolish whirlwinds. The couple tend to make permanent plans before they have had the chance to know each other on more than a superficial level. Without the intimacy component there is no depth to give the couple the requisite stability. Because passion is considered somewhat transitory, the couple may soon find themselves with only the fragile decision of their brief encounter. Their exaggerated expectations based on their over-investment of passion, leaves the couple disillusioned and the relationship unlikely to prosper.

2.1.2.8 Intimacy and Passion and Commitment - Consumate Love Sternberg (1988b) views this as the ultimate conception of love. With all three components present the union is expected to be complete, fulfilling and enduring. It is considered to be the type of love that most people would pursue as an ideal of their marriage union, yet not necessarily the type of love which would be sought at other times in one's life.

2.1.3 Changes in the Components through Time Sternberg (1988b) explains that the components have different time courses, and that the way the components interact with each other through time introduces important phases in the relationship. In part a successful marriage will be one that is able to sustain and adapt to these changes.

14 As a couple get to know, and become more predictable to each other, their experienced intimacy will decrease (Sternberg, 1988b). This need not be a negative state but in healthy relationships indicates that the pair is becoming increasingly closer, and simply that their visible intimacy is obscured below the surface of daily routine. Usually a sudden change in routine (for example one partner going on a business trip) will reveal the extent of the intimacy to the couple. Passion's course is usually different, and has a relatively short arousal phase, peaks soon after, then habituates. Finally decision/commitment tends to increase from zero, increasing as the relationship endures, then levelling off. Importantly the curves of all these graphs differ, and also differ for the individuals, hence the relationship dynamics tend to be in a state of flux, which increasingly becomes a state of stabilised flux.

2.1.4 Triangle Structure The construct of love cannot have its complexity justified by one simplified triangle, and Sternberg (1988a, 1988b) gave depth to his theory by considering the myriad possible combinations of triangle geometry. He focused his attention on two factors - the area of the triangle and the shape of the triangle.

Quite simply the smaller the area of the triangle, the less the love that is contained and hence experienced. The shape of the triangle indicates the way the love is balanced. An unbalanced triangle is skewed in the direction of any of the components in an unequal way, for example with an over-emphasis on passion or commitment. Ideally a balanced love relationship will be represented by an equilateral triangle. The representation below depicts a scalene triangle in which there is an overemphasis on the passion component, and is thus likely to be a union in which attraction is the core element:

15 Passion

Intimacy Decison / Commitment

Figure 2.1 Sternberg Love Triangle: Core element of Passion.

The graphic above would still require detailed diagnosis and interpretation to understand, amongst other things, the multiple sources and nature of the various components. It is therefore no more than a tool to aid understanding. Couples can draw their own triangles, have the sizes and shapes compared and turned into specific daily events to help unmask the complexity inherent in all relationships. Sternberg (1988b) adds that there are also additional love triangles which play a part in representing the relationships which should also be examined and superimposed on each other to highlight differences. For instance each partner has an image of the ideal other, which can also be represented by a triangle. This may or may not coincide with the triangle represented by their real partner. There may also be discrepancies between the way a partner perceives their love triangle and the way it is perceived in reality by the other. This can sometimes be explained by the gap between the way someone wants to express their love, and the way they finally action their thoughts into behaviour. (Sternberg, 1989b). For example one way of expressing intimacy would be by communicating inner feelings. If one feels intimate, but does not share inner feelings, it may be construed by the other that intimacy is lacking. Sternberg (1986) takes it further by suggesting that the way one acts affect ones feelings, and hence by inhibiting intimate expression, one may inhibit feelings of intimacy. This may in turn result in one's partner withdrawing in a similar way, resulting in a downward spiral. Conversely, by acting positively one can stimulate one,s feelings and the relationship.

16 2.1.5 Sternberg's Triangle in Research The convenience of using only a few key components to describe as complex a notion of love has attracted several researchers to do further evaluations of Sternberg's triangle. Sternberg himself did empirical research on his theory (Sternberg, 1986) and demonstrated that is has additional value as a practitioners' aid. He indicates that using triangles as a geometric metaphor helps people come to grips with love's complexity. He did this by focusing on perceptions of love in various ways viz.: for the self, other, ideal self, ideal other and for action.

2.1.5.1 Comparing Triangle Perceptions Several love measurement instruments were used to assess differences within subjects, for example between how one feels about the other, and how one would ideally like to feel about the other. Differences between subjects were also measured and computed, for instance how one feels about the other, and how the other feels about oneself. All scores were then correlated with relationship satisfaction and assessed. Some of the findings were: Although feelings about ideal others mattered in relationships, they mattered less than feelings about actual others. In evaluating the relationship, perceptions of how the other feels about oneself are considered as equally as the way one feels about the other. The strongest predictor of relationship satisfaction was found to be the difference between how the other is perceived to feel about the self and how an ideal other would feel about the self. Accurate predictions of relationship satisfaction can be made on this basis alone. The way one perceives the other to feel is more important to relationship satisfaction than the way the other actually feels.

17 2.1.5.2 Other Examinations of Sternberg's Theory Through a personal communication, Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) obtained a copy of Sternberg's original unpublished scale, the Sternberg Triangular Love Scale (STLS) and devised to test his research. Their intention was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the scale, and also to compare Sternberg's components with those in other love models. They found the scales of intimacy, passion and commitment to be highly intercorrelated and hence also to have a high overlap in factor loadings. Although they argue that the questionnaire could be flawed, Hendrick and Hendrick suggested that the scale measured a large general first factor, with the other two factors accounting for only marginal additional variance. The original STLS was hence an inadequate instrument for validating Sternberg's theory.

Acker and Davis (1992) did further evaluative work on Sternberg's triangular theory, and amongst other things made the following criticisms: Specific time-frames have been omitted for the waxing and waning of the interactions of the various components. For example although Sternberg (1988b) discusses that passion is high in the beginning, he is elusive on when it begins to decline and in what fashion it does so. Duration measures have also been omitted in that Sternberg is unclear whether it is just the passage of time in a relationship which is important, or the actual relationship stage. Empirical support for the triangular theory is sparse, including whether intimacy, passion and commitment are really experienced as separate phenomena in a relationship, and if so, whether they are measurable.

Acker and Davis (1992) attempted to test the theory and scale, using a mature sample, in more fixed relationships of longer duration. They concur with Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) on the psychometric weakness of the scale, especially in terms of item overlap. To counteract this, Acker and Davis developed a version

18 of the STLS which reduced the overlap, yet maintained good general reliability. Using the new scale they found some evidence to justify the three chosen components as separate, with Intimacy being the least established component, while Passion and Commitment seemed evident in the factor analysis. This was replicated in more recent study by Whitley (1993). Acker and Davis argue for yet further refinement to be done on the scale. The time course of the different components was generally as predicted by theory, except for Intimacy which did not indicate the expected decrease with time. Passion declined, most notably for women, whilst commitment showed a general increase which plateaued.

In terms of relating the triangles to satisfaction, Acker and Davis (1992) also found that simple scores were more significant than difference scores as predicted by Sternberg (1988a). They hypothesised that in their maturer sample, idealised love becomes increasingly less important. They instead found Commitment to be the most consistent predictor of relationship satisfaction, and in their view the most fundamentally important single component in adult relationships. In all they believe that although flawed, the STLS offers a reasonable measure of love, and one that with some fine-tuning, could be further improved.

Shaver and Hazan (1988, p. 491) considered Sternberg's components "underjustified", and in particular had difficulty with the notion of decision/commitment, since they consider love to be an emotion and not a cognitive event. Although there are decisions to be made in the legal sanctification of love, Shaver and Hazan argue that these are culturally bound conventions, irrelevant to the nature of love.

19 2.2. The Attachment Theory of Love

"...there is a strong causal relationship between an individual's experiences with his parents and his later capacity to make affectional bonds..." John Bowlby

2.2.1 Introduction This theory draws on the comprehensive works of Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) and Ainsworth and her co-workers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978) in placing the roots of adult romance in infant-caregiver attachment behaviours. Attachment theory emerged by Bowlby's interest in ethological accounts of observing animals in their natural environments. He was also influenced by an interdisciplinary team he worked on for the World Health Organisation in which his colleagues were amongst others, Konrad Lorentz, Margaret Mead, Jean Piaget, Erik Erikson and von Bertalanffy. Bowlby considered attachment to be a central component in human behaviour, occupying as central a role as sex and eating, and that its developed evolutionary role was in protecting the infant through maintaining proximity to its mother (Ainsworth and Bowlby, 1991). In attachment theory the caregiver becomes a secure base from which the infant is abstractly tied and from which it explores and masters the environment (Crowell and Waters, 1994). This was investigated by Ainsworth in the now classic experiments of the "Strange Situation". In the experiment, mother and infant are introduced to a laboratory playroom in which they are joined by an unfamiliar woman. While the stranger plays with the baby, the mother leaves briefly then returns. Later both mother and stranger leave briefly. From the observations of these experiments, Ainsworth made some of her major contributions to attachment theory (Bretherton, 1992).

20 Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver did most of the groundwork in translating infant attachment theory to a close adult relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987,1994a; Shaver and Hazan, 1988; Shaver, Hazan and Bradshaw, 1988). Hazan and Shaver (1987) argue that attachment theory provides a single conceptual framework to describe both healthy and unhealthy relationships and also to describe love in terms of its evolutionary manifestations as well as its biological context. Shaver and Hazan, (1988) suggest that since their explanation of love contains an important developmental component, it offers more than theories (like Sternberg's) which suspend their theories in medics res.

2.2.2 Infant Attachment In terms of Bowlby's theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1987, p. 512), infants who are separated from their primary caregivers react in predictable emotional ways over a course of time, viz.: Protest - crying, active searching and resistance to others soothing attempts. Despair - a state of passivity and sadness. Detachment - an active defensive disregard for the caregiver if he/she returns. Bowlby suggested (Shaver, Hazan and Bradshaw, 1988) that attachment is a set of behaviours which functions to achieve a degree of proximity to the primary caregiver. He observed that if the infant perceives the caregiver as consistently reliable it becomes secure to the extent that it can explore and establish some level of mastery of the surrounding environment. There are sensitive periods through infancy, childhood and adolescence in which confidence with the attachment figure can be established, and the expectations that become entrenched during these times remain relatively unchanged into adulthood. Inconsistent or unresponsive caregivers tend to produce infants which cry more often, are less inclined to explore, and appear to be generally more anxious. The responsivity of the caregiver becomes entrenched as a mental model of

21 relationships in the infant, and hence is manifested throughout later life including romantic relationships.

2.2.2.1 Attachment types From their observations, Ainsworth et al (1978) delineated three types of attachment: Secure - With such an attachment the infant remains unconcerned if the caregiver is out of sight, since from his experience he believes she will be responsive should he signal. About 66% of the general population are characterised as such. Anxious/Ambivalent - These infants cry more and show signs of separation anxiety with protest behaviours. They are not confident of the mothers responsivity and hence are insecure about using her as a secure base from which to explore. About 19% of their sample could be classified in this category. Avoidant - These infants would show rejection behaviours by rebuffing the caregiver, actions which were assumed to be defensive in nature. This is detachment behaviour and was manifested in about 21% of the sample.

2.2.3 Adult Attachment Hazan and Shaver (1987), taking their lead from Bowlby, set out to determine aspects of the continuity between infant attachments to their caregivers, and attachments on adult romantic relationships. The notion that the attachments of infancy and childhood had major influence on attachments to follow was supported by Ainsworth (1989), who suggested that many other affectional bonds throughout the lifespan were a product of the relationship with the primary caregiver. In the same way the infant's attachment style arises from the basic question "Can I depend on my caregiver to be consistently available?", the adult equivalent asks "Can I trust my partner to be available and responsive to my needs ?" (Havan and Shaver , 1994b). They maintain that in the same way that an infant and caregiver are "irreplaceable" so are two partners in a loving

22 union "irreplaceable". There is also the similarity that both dyads need reassurance and attention in similar ways.

To effectively explore their hypotheses, Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a questionnaire to measure attachment style in adults, and initially carried out two studies. One of their areas of study was a simple comparison of the quantities of adults in the various categories of attachment compared to those quantities of infants with the respective attachment styles. They discovered the prevalence of the three categories to be similar to those ventured by Ainsworth et al (1978), namely 56% secure, 25% Anxious/ ambivalent, and 19% Avoidant. The similarities of these numbers is interesting rather than noteworthy and although it may suggest a correlation this is not necessarily the case.

2.2.3.1 Attachment Style and Romantic Experiences The above research revealed that the quality of adult attachments had much in common with infant attachments of the same type. By extrapolating the behavioural characteristics of the infant attachment types to adult relationships, the following emerged:

2.2.3.1.1 Secure Style Those who were classified "secure", (or secure-autonomous by Belsky and Cassidy, 1994) described their romantic relationships to have been "happy, friendly and trusting" (Shaver et al, 1978, p. 515), and in addition the relationships endured for significantly longer (10 years compared to 5 for Anxious/ambivalent and 6 for avoidant.) Belsky and Cassidy consider this categorisation to have achieved the balance between intimacy and autonomy, separateness and connectedness. Simpson, Rholes and Nelligan's (1992) research showed secure men to be more supportive during distressing incidents than their insecure counterparts. Secure women on the other hand were more willing to seek support in anxiety provoking situations, than either anxious or avoidant women. This mutual supportive behaviour is probably

23 conducive to greater positive affect and relationship interdependence. This well being in relationships also translated to confidence and secure working lives (Hazan and Shaver, 1990), with these types being relatively unburdened by fears of failure. Work filled a healthy cornerstone of their lives, but was not used to satisfy unmet romantic needs.

2.2.3.1.2. Insecure Styles Conversely, avoidant lovers, who are believed to be a consequence of consistently unresponsive caregivers, were more fearful of closeness, and hence attempt to maintain a distance, even in close relationships. They use their work and careers as a way of avoiding social interaction, though are unlikely to enjoy their jobs (Hazan and Shaver, 1990). Belsky and Cassidy (1994) (who refer to avoidants as insecure-dismissing) state that this type is more intent on autonomy and separateness, essentially divorcing themselves from most forms of connectedness. Not surprisingly, avoidants tend to view their relationships cynically and as likely to fail (Hazan and Shaver, 1994a). In times of distress, Simpson, Rholes and Nelligan (1992) indicate that avoidant types are more likely to withdraw from both giving and receiving support from their partners. This coincides with behaviours exhibited by avoidant infants and children in the Strange Situation experiment.

The Anxious/ambivalent (or insecure-preoccupied) subjects were more likely to experience love at first sight, were excessively preoccupied with their partners and had greater desires for reciprocation and union than the other subjects. The anxious attacher attempts to keep his mate close by and engaged, as following his infantile experience, he lacks confidence in their responsiveness, having an inetched fear of being abandoned in love and rejected at work (Hazan and Shaver, 1990). When involved in relationships he is likely to be jealous and views his partner as unwilling to commit (Hazan and Shaver, 1994a).

24 2.2.3.2 Working Models of Attachment. It follows that relationship satisfaction may be significantly derived from attachment style. Hazan and Shaver (1994a) speculate that the working models of attachments conform to scripts as postulated by Berne (1975) in which basic life positions are staked out. This suggests that attachment styles are repeatedly reinforced by selecting mates that conform to relationship expectations. Belsky and Cassidy (194) suggest that this may happen even in seemingly counter- productive ways that sabotage the relationship. An avoidant person may therefore be attracted to someone who will reject him. As a consequence, in the insecure styles, there will be little expectation of like styles to be in union, as these relationships are unlikely to confirm the attachment working model.

There are also important differences in the mental models the different attachment styles hold about themselves. Simpson (1990) reports that the secure attachment individuals tended to think of themselves as friendly, good-natured and likeable. They also considered their partners to be reliable and good- intentioned. Those with an anxious attachment however thought of themselves as misunderstood, under-appreciated and lacking confidence. They saw their partners as unreliable and unwilling to commit. Finally the avoidant group viewed themselves even more negatively , as being suspicious and aloof, while their partners were also experienced as unreliable and overeager to commit.

2.2.3.3 Cross-generational Attachment Notably, the secure subjects reported warmer relationships between their parents, and between them and their parents, than the other two categories. Their need for care had been met consistently and hence they become capable of empathic responsiveness at a relatively early age. The avoidant subjects described their parents as "demanding, disrespectful, critical and uncaring" (Shaver and Hazan, 1988 p. 485). In essence they experienced their desired interaction with the caregiver as painful and hence tend to distrust present attachments. The anxious/ambivalent subjects saw their parents as

25 "unpredictable, intrusive and unfair" (Shaver and Hazan, 1988 p. 486) and hence have had inconsistent caregiving resulting in frequents attempts to attain more security by being obsessively needy.

2.2.3.4 Caregiving in Infants and Adults Although Hazan & Shaver (1987) had some reservations about the study, they considered it to be encouraging support for the link between attachment theory and romantic love. They acknowledge that attachment types are probably situation dependant to some extent and not necessarily traits as they are considered in the study. This is not fully supported by Simpson (1990) who indicates that although attachment styles can change, they are prone to be relatively stubborn and thus unlikely to change in a single relationship. Shaver and Hazan add that although there is significant continuity of attachment style between infancy and adulthood, their study indicated that the further one gets into adulthood, the less marked this continuity is. It may be that mental models may be revised as individuals get older and increasingly experiment with relationships.

Shaver and Hazan (1988) acknowledge two fundamental differences regarding adult and infant attachment. Firstly, sexual behaviour is not part of the infant experience, but fundamental in the adult world, and secondly adult relationships are generally reciprocal, whilst especially in the early months, infant attachment is one-sided. Despite this they detail an 8 item list of some of the similarities between infant and adult attachment behaviours, for example, that both depend on the significant other for maintenance of a positive mood. They argue further that adult romantic love involves an integration of three behavioural systems, namely attachment, caregiving and sexual mating, and hence that the attachment style, since it comes first developmentally, could strongly influence the latter two systems. Shaver and Hazan (1988) indicate how this could manifest as indicated in Table 2.1.

26 Table 2.1 Attachament style, caregiving and sexuality

Attachment Caregiving Sexuality style

Secure Comfortably gives and Strives for mutual intimacy and receives care. pleasure. Avoidant Unable or unwilling to give or Maintains emotional distance, receive care. may be promiscuous. Anxious/ Gives care in self-sacrificing, Attempts to satisfy needs for Ambivalent compulsive way; dissatisfied security and love through with received care. sexual contact.

2.2.4. Predicting Adult Relationships using Attachment Style Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment style and attachment history in an attempt to see if they would offer any utility in predicting what kind of romantic relationship could be expected. Using an array of measurement instruments they hypothesised that: Secure subjects would have a higher self-esteem. Avoidants would measure low on desiring intimacy. Anxious/Ambivalents would score highest on "love addiction".

Incidental to the hypotheses, Feeney and Noller confirm the congruency between current attachment style and early parenting as found in Hazan and Shaver (1987). Similarly, from the background information obtained, Feeney and Noller also found the correlation between duration of relationship and attachment style, with Secure individuals having the most enduring relationships.

In terms of the hypotheses, a positive relationship emerged between self-esteem and the Secure attachment style. Secure subjects also reflected high self- confidence and trust. Hypothesis two was also supported with avoidant subjects

27 scoring low on the Love Ideal scale and the Avoidance of Intimacy second- order scale. The anxious/ambivalent group obtained scores on Neurotic scale to indicate their extreme approach to love, supporting hypothesis three. This indicates that their relationships are characterised by dependence and a yearning for commitment.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) affirm that interpersonal relations probably have their roots in early attachment, but suggest that life experiences and personality modulate the early influences, and hence that a simple correlation between infant and adult attachments is too simplistic. In addition they have some difficulty with the untested psychometric properties of the attachment scale instrument developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987). Hendrick and Hendrick reason that the self-report attachment scale is one dimensional as a general measure of love. They propose that until the constructs of love can be established with more certainty and consensus, that multiple measures of love should be used.

2.2.5. Relationship Quality and Attachment style Another test of attachment theory was done by Simpson (1990) who hypothesised: The different attachment styles mental models will result in different kinds of romantic relationships. The different attachment styles should result in relationships of differing emotional tone. The different attachment styles should result in differing emotional distress following relationship dissolution.

Given the inadequacies of the Hazan and Shaver (1987) instrument, a new measure was constructed to test attachment style. The problem of the measurement instrument, however, appears to be ongoing, as evidenced by recent comment from Bartholomew (1994) who was of the opinion that

28 empirical and theoretical progress would be hampered until sufficient reliable measures were available. Despite this flaw, the results of Simpson's (1990) study indicated that in terms of the hypotheses: Secure men tended to be involved with less insecure women. Anxious men were involved with women who scored low on commitment, whilst avoidant men tended to be involved with less trusting, insecure and dissatisfied women. Avoidant people did their best to ward off intimacy and commitment, while anxious people were extremely focused on their partners trustworthiness. Women who dated secure men, reported more positive emotions than the other styles, which reported positive emotional experience significantly less regularly. Secure people were better at resolving negative emotions and displayed a higher adaptability. Avoidant men who had suffered relationship dissolution reported significantly less distress than the other attachment styles. The other styles showed no significant effects. This was not true of avoidant women who seemed equally adept as the other styles in experiencing dissolution distress.

The underlying interpretation of Simpson's study could be that the different attachment styles tend to result in qualitatively different relationships. With secure individuals been generally better disposed towards more fulfilling attachments. The study supports the Hazan and Shaver (1994a) assertion that adults and infants respond to relationship disruption in similar ways.

2.2.6. Other Criticisms Duck (1994) criticised Hazan and Shaver's theories for being too deterministic, focusing on the dark unknowable history of the adult. He also contended that the model was too static, the individual captured by a pre-existing condition with little allowance for the day to day negotiation and variation continuously worked out by couples. He had difficulty with the mix of styles shared between parents, and how the child would glean one attachment perception from them

29 both. He questioned the continuity of attachment style from infancy through adulthood, especially in relation to the myriad of other constructs which are shaped and re-shaped in the 15 year period we call childhood. The issue of the measurement comes up again, in that if adults are asked to respond to the parental style of their parents, they are answering from the psychological present with all its inherent and unreliable distortions. Duck is adamant that if there is a continuity in attachment style it must be demonstrated with scientific longitudinal studies.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1994) had difficulty with the assumptions of the "Strange Situation" experiment of Ainsworth, and their subsequent translation to romantic relationships. In addition they cite several methodological problems with the early experiments and subsequent troubles in replicating them. They indicate that recent research has shown infant attachment classifications to be unstable over periods as short as 6 months, and therefore query the assumption that they could be stable over the following 15 - 25 years. Hazan and Shaver (1994b) respond by emphasising that the continuity of attachment types are not linear or rigid, but do tend to be relatively stable. Hendrick and Hendrick also note how the infant's temperament is ignored from the equation, with the primary caregiver being considered the only attachment influence. A similar criticism is made by Kobak (1994) who notes that attachment style should be thought of as a dynamic interaction between the quality of attachment and the child's personality. Hazan and Shaver (1994b) respond to this by suggesting that what the infant learns from experiences becomes internalised in his behaviour. The infant forms a bias in regard to his mental schema of attachment, and this influences his behaviour in other relationships, which will also play a role in his internal working model.

A point made by Lewis (1994) is that attachment style cannot be a trait of a child, but rather is linked to a specific relationship. A child may be secure with his father yet ambivalent about his mother and hence experiences multiple

30 attachments of varying qualities. This implies that the working model is actually a network matrix of social relationships. In the same way, close adult relationships also exist in a social matrix. One's spouse is only one part of that, albeit an important part, and hence is not the only relationship required to express or reflect a singular attachment style. Lewis is therefore suggesting that attachment style is not a fixed construct applicable to all people, but a linked network of situational and individualised styles differently applicable to different people. Although Hazan and Shaver (1994b) acknowledge the concept of multiple attachments, they maintain that a dominant attachment exists to the primary caregiver. They discuss the notion of an attachment hierarchy with the primary caregiver on top and others coming in below at different levels. People may change position in the hierarchy with the passage of time. Adult romantic relationships often ascend to the top of the hierarchy replacing a parent, though the parent normally maintains a position near the top. They acknowledge that each individual has multiple attachments which could be influential, however the primary caregiver has a disproportionate weight given the amount of time, control and interest of his/her position. The person we rely on most for comfort, security and reliability, has the greatest impact in determining what we expect from the world in attachment terms. This person may not be consistent in their approach either, but the accumulated frequency and contexts of the caregiver's responsivity will mould the infant's perception of the quality of that attachment. An important variable in the infant's internalisation of an attachment style, is not only how the caregiver might generally respond, but rather how in what circumstances the caregiver responds. This is because it is especially during the critical periods in which the infant is in distress, that it is in a heightened state to internalise its experiences.

2.2.7. Conclusion Hazan and Shaver (1994b) believe that Attachment theory forms an excellent foundation for a comprehensive theory of close relationships. They contend that any theory which purports this, should be based in biology (as theirs is ) and be

31 explainable. in evolutionary terms (as theirs is). They are the first to acknowledge that attachment theory as applied to close adult relationships is not complete, but they feel confident that the accumulation of research will indicate the validity of the model.

32 2.3. The Evolutionary Model of Love.

"The nucleus of what we mean by love naturally consists in sexual love with sexual union as its aim."

Sigmund Freud

2.3.1 Introduction In Darwinian terms, love exists for procreation of the species. Non-human mating, especially amongst mammals, often involves complex behaviour rituals, however, no other species appears to match humans in terms of the range and diversity of emotions experienced. A fundamental example of this is the notion of fatherhood, which even amongst other primates, is virtually non-existent (Mellen, 1981). The evolution of human adultlove appears to have followed from mother-infant love, and Mellen speculates that this emerged from a series of evolutionary adaptations amongst protohumans in the Plio-Pleistocene era 700,000 - 300,000 years ago, viz.: Increasing brain size of humans and the limitations of the female pelvis, meant that infants were born at a precarious foetal stage. These infants were much more vulnerable and dependant as they needed a longer period of growth and development, they thus had a good chance of surviving only with highly attentive and nurturing mothers. Since this diverted mothers from other roles, mother and infant increasingly required the protection and support of an adult male. Females became increasingly home based, either nursing or pregnant, whilst males ever more took on the chore of hunting and providing.

The biological changes which reinforced these changes brought about diminishing physical attributes amongst females which were necessary for

33 hunting. This included the articulation of the arm for throwing with force and accuracy, and the pelvic expansions for childbirth which slowed down running speed. With a physical endowment increasingly oriented away from hunting and more towards nurturing the young, a more rapid cultural evolution took place in which a division of distinctive roles between males and females took place (Mellen, 1981).

2.3.1.1 Division of Roles For the species to thrive, the division of roles entrenched a mutual dependency between the sexes, and remains an integral foundation of modern existence. Certainly modern life and social trends have eroded many of the reasons men and women need to co-operate as they used to. Since there is no longer a need to hunt, and women are fully capable of providing for themselves, there are less evolutionary reasons why relationships are required to exist, yet the cultural legacy our ancestors left lives on. As Betzig (1989) argues, procreation is fully viable without commitment or marriage, yet people have evolved to co- operate and provide a better calibre of care for each other and their young, by virtue of their commitment. Omnigamy - being free to mate with anyone else available - was according to Darwin (1859), never part of the human societies. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1971) contends that although in many species the sexual act has purely a reproductive value, in humans it fulfils the additional function of maintaining the bond between partners.

2.3.1.2 The Origins of Love Love, as a genetically implanted drive in humans, came about to facilitate a purpose. Mellen (1981) speculates that in some primitive form it must have existed in the early protohumans as it was required then. If modern hunter societies are anything to go by (for example the San) a hunting band of males can be away from home several days tracking and capturing an animal. This prey must then be carried, often a far distance, back to the home base. This was a difficult task, but was done anyway, presumably because our ancestors

34 wanted to, and probably because of the attachment they felt with the young and waiting female. Although there was doubtless an economic component to the transaction (meat exchanges for fruit and vegetables), it seems to have amounted to more than that. It would have been easier for the males to have gathered their own vegetables and eaten their meat on the spot. Hence it is imagined that early humans felt a primitive affection coupled to their copulatory drive. They wanted to share their food and may have entertained other emotional ideas. Mellen suggests that they may have missed their mates and looked forward to relating the story of the hunt and seeing their children. This desire would have helped the young survive and hence became entrenched as a genetic component in the human line. Modern men and women fall in love today because of the primitive needs of their early ancestors children. Eibl- Eibesfeldt (1971) states that humans developed an innate disposition for co- operation and mutual aid, and that although the species has naturally aggressive impulses, these are counter-balanced by deep rooted social tendencies.

2.3.1.3 The Tasks of Love Mate selection is a non-random event, but rather the result of forces evolved to enhance one's reproductive success (Buss, 1988a). Darwin, writing about animals in general, stated that where males or females differ in terms of structure, colour or ornament, it is the mainly the result of generations of sexual selection, which give the offspring some advantage in competing with members of the same sex . In evolutionary terms, reproductive success means having healthy children who themselves have healthy children. Yet this aspect of ensuring healthy children is a pivotal aspect of peoples lives, and appears to be an almost unconscious motivation for the complex interactions which transpire between the sexes. From the initial first shaky explorations of high-school dating to the inspired strategic plotting to win someone's hand, the natural forces of nature are comprehensively plotting to ensure an optimum mating combination. From the myriad potential mating partners which exist, people must be drawn to

35 those which will enhance their reproductive success, and avoid those who would retard their reproductive potential. Both males and females need to compete with members of their own sex to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex (Buss, 1988b). For optimum reproduction to occur, love is a major force and according to Buss (1988a p. 101) would need to be sustained long enough to proceed through the typical sequence of tasks required by evolution, viz.: 1) Attracting a mate 2) Retaining that mate 3) Reproducing with the mate, and 4) investing parentally with the offspring. Where love per se starts and ends is empirically unclear, however its place in the process cannot ever be denied, as it is genetically entrenched (Mellen, 1981).

2.3.1.3.1 Resource Display Buss (1988a) indicates that love creates action, and although the overall goal of love is to produce children who will in turn become reproductively successful, there are a variety of love actions along the way to reach that goal. He suggests that the first of these is resource display. Resources can be anything from material possessions of both sexes to cooking ability of both sexes. Since women have a finite amount of possible children they can reproduce, it is important that the mate they choose will not only be willing to invest in their children, but also have something to invest. The resources that males look for are traditionally focused on the reproductive potential of the woman. The strongest indicators of this potential are aae and health . Hypothesising directly from this, one would expect that females exact more tasks centered around enhancing their physical resources, whilst men's tasks would be hinge around displays of things like possessions, status and ambition. This, says Buss, is the root of the different criteria the two sexes have in selecting a mate. Buss (1988b) found that it was perceived that females who enhanced their appearance were doing it to signal sexuality. Similarly men attempted to enhance their attraction by emphasising and displaying their resources. Interestingly some personality resources are regarded favourably by both sexes with being kind and being understanding

36 rated highly by both sexes and other criteria like having a good sense of humour and showing sympathy also coming out near the top.

2.3.1.3.2 Exclusivity Once obtained, a mate must be retained, and Buss (1988a) suggests that the next task centres on exclusivity, particularly in the two areas of fidelity and guarding. Infidelity is a threat to both parties. If a female is perfidious, it can mean that a male brings up a competitor's offspring - doing nothing for his own genetic continuity - whilst deceit by a man means that his resources may need to be spread or redirected, compromising any material advantage his original partner may have had. There are behavioural acts which manifest directly around fidelity functions, the most significant one being marriage, which may be viewed as a lifetime contract to be faithful and to provide. It is also an established context for sexual intimacy and ultimately provides a socially recognised institution for bearing and raising children. In a sense by bearing children and looking after them, the female delivers her side of the evolutionary bargain. The male in turn provides his part by financially nurturing the process. If he does not do this, he compromises the viability of his offspring ever successfully reproducing, as they may not be educated properly or may succumb to ill health. Fortunately, biology helps the process by supplying parental love, which aids parents in their emotional motivation with their nurturing investment.

2.3.1.3.3 Love actions - A Modern Test The tasks described are in broad terms the behavioural manifestations and functions of love, which in the view of evolutionary psychology exist purely for their ultimate reproductive consequences (Buss, 1988a). By removing love from its internal ephemeral state inside people, and considering it as measurable in view of its consequent behaviours, Buss set about testing the evolutionary hypotheses. He first obtained examples of love acts suggested by a large group of respondents. After eliminating duplicates and filtering other overlaps, he

37 produced a list of 100 distinct acts. The prototypicality of the love acts, were then rated by forty subjects, half from each gender.

Preliminary support was found for several of the evolutionary predictions, though a young bias in the sample failed to produce acts associated with parental love, and centered more on romantic love acts. Nevertheless Buss stated that the approach was an empirical success. He notes importantly that all love actions ultimately converge on their reproductive advantage, and that while most other models see love as an attitude or emotional event, he considers the actions of love to be its central component. Although he acknowledges the thoughts, feelings and chemical events which drive the process, it is the consequences of these events which the evolutionary approach considers as its destination.

2.3.2 Mate Selection Epstein and Guttman (1984) in their overview, suggest that mate selection, and hence the forces of love, steer individuals towards homogenous partners, that is, partners are sought who have similar genes and traits, with a goal to exploit the reproduction of those genes. For example spouse correlations of intelligence are about 0.40. while for education they are almost 0.60. Yet the evidence for homogeneity of partners is ambiguous. For although similarity theories have been comprehensively researched, and characteristics as diverse as weight, values and earlobe length have been shown to play pivotal roles in mate selection (Buss and Schmitt, 1993), they are not the final word on the topic. Other theories described by Epstein and Guttman are those of comblementarity, in which one seeks a mate who has needs different in kind or intensity from one's own and also a theory which suggests that no personality variables at all influence mate selection. No one theory has been conclusively proved or disproved. On the other hand mate selection is clearly not random, in that some sociological variables like race, religion and class are established influencing conditions. Although it seems as if psychological phenomena play a definite

38 role, Guttman and Epstein, reviewing the literature, remain uncertain as to what these are and how they operate.

Another approach is to examine existing marriages which appear to be satisfactory and try to establish what elements in the union make it so. Although this has been attempted several times, the results remain inconclusive and ambiguous. It seems that finally an assortment of sociological and psychological variables interact in complex ways to bring couples together. Importantly, as Buss and Schmitt (1993) emphasise, it is the motivation and strategies behind the theories which make them relevant. This is because the notions of similarity or complementarity, although interesting do not explain why as criteria, they would contribute to any goal or strategy. For example would a union based on similarity be a more effective one for procreation ? Buss and Schmitt (p. 205) argue that human mating is always, consciously or unconsciously, strategic, and its purpose is to 'solve specific adaptive problems which their ancestors confronted during human evolution'.

2.3.2.1 Ancestral Trends in Modern Times. Simpson and Gangestad (1992) warn that the environments of ancestral history are not sociologically identical to current environments. Betzig (1989) claims that marriage is a universal human behaviour, further suggesting that it is also as old an institution as being human is. Yet modern trends, like the feminist revolution, affect contemporary relationships with women who are materially self-sufficient and do not require men as a resource. However, evolution may not have had sufficient time to adapt to current trends, and thus regardless of contemporary views, the psychological evolutionary legacy that people have inherited has probably not changed significantly. For example even though recent trends in medicine allow for women to conceive when older than previously, men still desire (and are still wired) to seek out and mate with younger women (Buss and Schmitt, 1992; Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei and Gladue, 1994, Simpson and Gangestad, 1992).

39 2.3.2.2 Sexual Strategies Cross-cultural studies indicate that that lifelong mating with a single person is not the norm for human beings (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). This brings in the dimension of short-term mating which can range from high school dating to affairs and marriages of brief duration. Similarly the construct of love does not need to be envisaged as a lifelong event, but can equally be seen in the context of less ambitious and enduring quests. Men and women who have differing biological constraints have different problems to solve in selecting a mate. The strategies also differ whether they are intended for the long or short term mating. For example, men on a short-term quest must identify women who are sexually accessible, fertile, yet must minimise their commitment and investment. Men on a long-term quest will also seek accessibility and fertility but in addition will want more certainty about paternity, will need to identify good parenting skills and someone willing to commit in the long-term. Women also have differing problems in the long and short-term, for example a women involved in a short- term relationship will want to extract immediate resources, whilst in a long-term relationship, a greater problem is the investment of resources for a longer time frame. To deal with problems, men and women have evolved distinct functional psychological mechanisms which constitute their sexual strategies.

2.3.2.2.1 Mating Preferences One way these mechanisms function is through preferences. Men and women have evolved preferences, which may or may not be consciously articulated, in terms of where to best invest their romantic energies (Buss and Schmitt, 1993). For the individuals involved these preferences are experienced as attractions, desires and love. Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth and Trost (1990), argue that personality traits are evolved instruments for attracting mates. This implies that something like being kind or generous is an adaptive feature used ultimately for producing offspring. Most individuals regardless of sex, prefer partners who are physically

40 attractive, are homogeneous in terms of attitudes, values and belief systems, and have pleasant personality characteristics (Simpson and Gangestad, 1992).

The sexes do however place their emphases in different places, with men focused more on physical attraction, while women tend towards more personal characteristics. Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth and Trost (1990) claim that in most species, including humans, females are more selective, whilst males tend to compete more amongst themselves. This is mostly thought of in terms of their parental investment. Females have a greater investment in the young by carrying the foetus, nursing the infant and having a limited amount of reproducing they can do, They would therefore need to be extra careful to maximise the viability of the offspring, whilst males tend to try and maximise the amount of offspring, since they have less to lose from a badly chosen mate. Despite this, compared to other mammalian species, human men have a relatively high investment as parents when they are involved as mates in the long term, and in these circumstances also become almost as selective as females. It therefore became important for hominids to be able to recognise agreeable character traits and to extrapolate current functioning to future functioning in regard to things like conscientiousness and emotional stability. Those who could do this more successfully could mate more successfully (Kenrick et al).

The sexual strategies for men and women tend to differ in both the short and long term, but are more pronounced in the short term. For example in one American campus study reported by Buss and Schmitt (1993), when approached by an attractive member of the opposite and asked "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive, would you come to bed with me tonight ?" While 75% of men agreed to this, none of the women did. In the same experiment when the request was merely for a date, roughly 50% of both males and females consented. In terms of evolutionary psychology, men in short term quests would merely want to inseminate as many women as possible,

41 but must attempt to minimise their commitment. When it comes to long term commitment, men are far more selective, and here they prefer women who are young, physically healthy, sexually loyal and likely to be good nurturer of the offspring. By the same token women dislike long-term mates who are poor, lack ambition and are uneducated. When women do strategise about short-term involvement, it involves immediate extraction of resources, though could involve any of a number of reasons suggested by Buss and Schmitt like getting rid of an unwanted mate, gaining access to otherwise inaccessible social circles or deterring an existing long-term mate from further indiscretion.

2.3.2.3 Common Gender Concerns In terms of evolutionary psychology theory, the complex dance of human relationships can thus never be seen out of the context of complex survival strategies. At the same time preferences never dictate entirely into action as variables extend beyond the desires of the individuals involved into the broader sociological arena, including pressure from parents, availability of mates possessing relevant qualities and competition from members of the same sex vying for the same mates. Men and women are however on the lookout for similar cues when they are prospecting for a long term mate. Some of the main areas they would be concerned about, according to Buss and Schmitt(1993) are:

2.3.2.3.1 Identifying a Good Reciprocal Ally This is the problem of finding someone with whom the individual can maintain a co-operative relationships in the long term. Each may have competing demands and needs pulling in other directions, but they are required to form a team to provide an optimum environment for their offspring. Both sexes therefore appear to place a premium on mates who are kind and understanding. There is however limited empirical information on exactly what cues are used to know this about a mate.

42 2.3.2.3.2 Identifying Someone who is Committed This means identifying someone who will consistently deliver their part of the bargain over the long term. Both parties are on the look out for cues as to their prospective mate's willingness to remain committed as both stand to lose if this commitment is not present.

2.3.2.3.3 Identifying a Mate with Good Parenting Skills These are often difficult to identify in the earlier phases of courtship, but some criteria could be intelligence, kindness and nurturance.

2.3.2.4 Other Dimensions of Mate Selection There are caveats to the general rules which govern male and female romantic involvement. The first is the notion of self-appraisal. According to some sources (Kenrick, Groth, Trost and Sadalla, 1993) individuals also tend to seek mates of more or less equal value to their own "market value". This is to avoid precious time attempting to mate with others who may be in another league. This is the notion of social exchange in which individuals compete to gain access to more desirable mates, but will attempt to find partners who are around their own level of status and/or attractiveness. Those who can assess their position most realistically would save time avoiding futile overtures to unobtainable mates. Interestingly this notion can also be applied to personality attributes, and a personality judgement can also be made to best serve finding a likely mate. Kenrick et al (p.953) suggest that humans are "naturally schematic" to personality dimensions although this process is generally a covert one. The social exchange dimension adds a level of complexity to the evolutionary principles, suggesting that blanket rules for males and females may be somewhat simplistic. To add to the complexity, Simpson and Gangestad (1992) state that individuals can either have a restricted socio-sexual orientation (unwilling to engage in sex without closeness, commitment and other signs of emotional bonding) or unrestricted (more willing to engage in sex with absence of bonding indicators). Either gender can belong to either category, and suggests that there is

43 considerable within-sex variability in mate selection. This further suggests that the different types within the genders may adopt alternative strategies in finding mates.

2.3.3 Evolution, Marriage and Divorce Marriage is often thought of as a cultural phenomenon and to a large extent cultural dynamics are expressed in the marriage institution. Evolutionists however would have it that it is the innate bonding tendencies of our species which makes marriage inevitable (Mellen, 1981). Durable attachments are a consequence of being human, yet other innate forces do not always pull in the same direction. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1971) concurs that people are motivated by different systems of drives which often conflict. For example it is an evolutionary advantage for men to mate with as many women as possible, but its also an evolutionary advantage to nurture the children of that partnership exclusively. This implies that the inner dynamic of individuals results in the complex and difficult choices people must make, based on their antagonistic needs.

In terms of evolutionary theory, successful males attract the most mates (to genetically spread leadership qualities), and hence there is a greater demand than supply. Given those circumstances it may appear that polygamy is a more logical adaptation than monogamy, and not surprisingly makes up about 75% of a 1961 survey of 554 societies (Mellen, 1981). Modern monogamism has its roots in the Christian church, which outlawed polygamy, yet appears to go against the grain of human nature given the multiplicity of escapes available in the modern world, viz.: divorce, clandestine affairs, permanent liaisons, casual infidelities, flirtation etc. This suggests, that even modern monogamous societies, are not purely monogamous, as although polygamy is not sanctioned in having more than one wife at a time, the concept of divorce allows for serial polygamy, while the proliferation of extra-marital affairs tolerates a seemingly insurpressible polygamy.

44 2.3.3.1 Ancient Nurturing Unions Mellen (1981), surveying both ancient and contemporary ethnological, ethological and anthropological accounts of love and marriage, comments that with some rare exceptions, love is a universal phenomenon. The exceptions include societies in which women were merely regarded as possessions used to breed with and work. Unfortunately the earlier the accounts, the less precise the science of observation. Nevertheless, love does by nearly all accounts, appear to be a fundamental part of the human condition. Men and women appear to have not only a genetic capacity for realising enduring emotional attachments, but a need as well. From an evolutionary perspective this quality was designed to protect and nurture the vulnerable offspring for several years. Mellen states that because the offspring of these parents would have had a greater chance of survival than non-loving parents, it allowed the bonding attachments to very gradually become entrenched as a species specific trait. He speculates that perhaps the non-loving or less loving protohuman stock may have become extinct by their inability to form cohesive kin bands. Mellen speculates that evidence of the evolutionary nature of love is found in the tender way love emerges when the other is vulnerable, weak, tearful or in need. Nature has provided humans with the resources to nurture and protect their partners and children when they most need it.

2.3.3.2 Marriage Dissolution 2.3.3.2.1 Adultery. Betzig (1989) examined what makes marriages last and hence looked at reasons for divorce in this mass of cultures. Curiously she reports at least five cultures in which marriage dissolution is rare to the point of being absent. Of the 160 sample cultures examined, adultery was the single most common cause of divorce especially if the adultery was committed by the woman. It appears that there is a huge international cross-cultural double standard, which effectively suggests that a wife's indiscretion put a marriage a risk, while a man's does far less so. The prominence given to adultery as grounds for divorce in so many cultures, lends

45 support to Buss, (1988a) that this contradicts any advantage the marriage may have had at all for either sex. That is, adultery on the woman's part may mean the male provides resources to raise an offspring which does nothing to pass on his genetic inheritance, whilst adultery by a man may mean that the male's resources may need to be spread to someone else.

2.3.3.2.2 Sterility Sterility followed as the second most common reason for divorce, with cruelty and maltreatment following. The large number of divorces associated with sterility also make sense in terms of evolutionary theory, which has it that marriage ultimately exists only for reproduction (Buss, 1988a).

2.3.3.3 Love and Procreation Love may be evolution's tool for getting people together for reproduction, but evidently the form of love changes given the amount of marriages that fail. Betzig (1989) notes that there is a correlation between duration of marriage and number of children, implying that having children is one reason for marriages lasting. Couples with no children divorce more than couples with one child, who divorce more often than couples with two children, who divorce more often than couples with three or more children. This is true in at least 30 modern countries including South Africa. Certainly, evolutionary necessity requires only that love be sustained long enough to provide a reasonable chance of survival for the children. This could explain the reducing passion described by Sternberg (1988b) a few years into the relationship.

2.3.4 Conclusion If the evolutionary psychologists are to be believed, then it is the capacity that humans have for love, and not their great intelligence, which has allowed them to so dramatically dominate the planet so entirely (Mellen, 1981). The reason given is that during the critical years when our ancestors were a small relatively innocuous species trying to survive in a hostile environment, love played a major

46 role, in giving their offspring a greater chance of survival. If infant mortality falls below some critical level, the species becomes extinct, yet love gave humans the edge in nurturing their young, allowing them to prosper and colonise most of the planet.

Love's powerful force in humans appears to have shaped human destiny. Greenfield (1973 p.49) argues that love is the "syndrome" which makes the nuclear family, and hence the entire western system of socio-economic functioning possible. Even with the increasing permissive values, earlier and freer sex, the system will continue. Only the eradication of love can fundamentally alter the system.

Yet despite the great need to love, the psychological complexity of humans, in conjunction with their increasing lifespans and mindnumbing modern lifestyles, love's sustainability in a single relationship has been left a little shattered. Love is an intricate and mostly perplexing construct, which when viewed outside of evolutionary theory, may be regarded as confusing and unpredictable. However, modern love, viewed through evolutionary filters as worn by the likes of Buss (1988a, 1988b), Mellen (1981) and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1971) becomes a curiously uncomplicated construct. All the primitive drives, urges and desires are aimed at one thing and one thing only - successful reproduction.

47 Chapter 3. Lee's. Model of Love.

"Today we have the naming of parts. Yesterday We had daily cleaning. And tomorrow morning, We shall have what to do after firing. But today, today we have naming of parts" Henry Reed Lessons of the War

3.1 Introduction In the model devised by John Alan Lee, love is not a fixed construct which is identical for everyone, but rather a somewhat more variable entity dependent on the individual (Lee, 1976). It was developed out of a 1500 item questionnaire used on large samples of men and women in many western countries. In addition Lee (1988) explains how he also used readings from classic novels (e.g. "Of Human Bondage" by Somerset Maughn) and historical observers (e.g. Plato and Ovid) to cluster, categorise and classify the types of loves from those books. Further research on Iovestyles has subsequently been done with non-western cultures, for example Wenchun and Cross (1995).

Lee uses the metaphor of colour to explain his approach, and just like there are a variety of colours, each uniquely different, yet still a colour, there are similarly different types of love. In the same vein, as each individual has a favourite colour, so each person has a predilection for a particular style of loving. In addition, although in reality there are an infinite variety of colours, so it is with love, yet it is convenient and useful to think in terms of the main styles, although cognisance must be taken that each style has many shades. Lee maintains that

48 just as one colour is no better or worse than another, so is it with love. His main emphasis is rather the importance of the colours matching.

3.2 The Lovestyles Lee (1976) discusses 6 main lovestyles. As with colours, he considers the main 3 styles to be primary, while the other 3 secondary styles are the key mixtures of the primary styles. Importantly when the primary styles are mixed, what emerges has new qualities, while at the same time shedding ingredients which may have been present in the original styles (Lee, 1988). Lee (1976) cautions that the lovestyles should not be thought of as fixed entities, but as modalities open to change. Thus people may slowly evolve through various phases in which different styles are preferred. However with maturity, people generally stay relatively fixed to their preferred style.

3.2.1 Eros This style has a powerful attraction element as its central core and may often manifest as "love at first sight". Lee (1976) stresses that the name eros does not derive from its modern usage as "sexual", but rather its original meaning as "sensual". There is a strong physical component to eros, and erotic lovers often hold an ideal image of the person they want as a partner. For the erotic lover, finding the right partner is something of a quest, and hence they may recognise that person instantly. Yet the relationship is handicapped if it never gets beyond the impact of beauty which launches it. If the physical relationship manages to translate into something more profound, then erotic unions can have a substantial longevity. In other circumstances the partnership may be short, physical and intense. The erotic lover is impatient to discover if his most recent relationship is with the right person after all, and hence may rush the proceedings along. Erotic lovers, being passionate, are often disappointed as they cling to their illusionary ideal and expect possibly too much from their relationships. This style of lover will not shy away from making commitments and talking about the future and, being an open personality, will not pursue strategic

49 games in bidding for a relationship. The erotic personality is often well adjusted with a high self-esteem, and Lee (1988) speculates that they have typically had happy childhoods. They prefer to have their partners nearby, and the erotic style is strained by a lengthy absence of the partner. Lee (1976) states that eros is a difficult lovestyle. It is rapid, physical, honest and intense, and these qualities place great demands on the respective partners involved. Although Lee (1988) notes that many partners remain forever eros, he suggests that in terms of his model many lovers begin as eros but slowly become more like storge.

3.2.2 Storge In this style, love evolves from friendship. Lee (1976) sees this as an undramatic and perhaps unexciting form of love. The storgic lover is not intent on an intense relationship, but rather a more comfortable denouement. Storgic relationships often develop from lifelong friendships, but can also develop from new relationships. The common theme is that the storgic lover is not looking for love, but may meet someone through mutual interests or social groups. From here the slow plod of emotional osmosis sets up a quiet process through which the involvement gradually warms. Lee (1976) suggests that storge (pronounced store-gay) is therefore best matched with another storge, as the pace and romance never intensify to the level expected by individuals subscribing to the other styles. The general lack of histrionics, strategies, campaigns and wounds associated with romance are generally bypassed by storge, and hence its unions have a hardy, stable and enduring nature. The storgic partners often share many mutual interests which serve to maintain the relationship. Unlike some of the other styles, there is no obsession about the partner, nor any attempt to monopolise the other's life. There is no game playing or attempts to fully understand the partner. This does not imply that the storgic union is void of an emotional experience, but rather that this experience is far more subtle and perhaps deeper than the other styles. Lee (1976 p. 79) proclaims that the storgic lover considers true love to be "... a deep feeling of respect, concern, compassion and solicitude.".

50 3.2.3 Ludus The dominant feature of this style is that love is seen as game. The ludic lover is intent on keeping his distance and strategically plays his hand, which is generally to love and to leave. Even during the course of a relationship, the ludic lover is often pluralistic and hence will not demand or expect any exclusivity. The ludic lover may be charming, poetic and on the surface, completely genuine. For some ludus it is not uncommon to play their game openly, and admit to dalliance. On the other hand he could be deceptive, feign loyalty, yet have several relationships going at once. They care little for the feelings of their prey, or at best consider it simply unfortunate that others get hurt. Ludus is not set on merely having a typical "one night stand" but prefers the whole game, and that the process of love should be fun. The ludic lover is aware of beauty and attraction, but has no real preference. He is a good communicator with an arsenal of lines for every occasion. Ludus requires a self-sufficient personality, yet not because he is going to bare his weaknesses, rather it is what the game requires - confidence. Lee (1988) states that ludic lovers are often frustrated as adults, and typically will not have had an ideal childhood. Lee (1976) argues that although ludus can be thought of as immoral, this is a value judgement and hence not part of his doctrine. Ludus is simply a style of love and is certainly not the exclusive domain of men. Although men may be more prone to this style, it has its female advocates, not least of which is the femme fatale. Although seduction has a role to play in ludus, it is the style of the game which is the central feature, not merely the sex. Importantly Lee suggests that most people have a least one experience in which they are the ludic partner. This implies that there could be an inherent capacity to play the game of love in each individual, but that in some minority this becomes their dominant lovestyle.

51 3.2.4 Mania - Eros + Ludus As the name suggests, manic love is an intense almost tormented experience, riddled with obsession and an insatiable appetite for attention (Lee, 1976). It is both extreme and profound. In relationships, the manic partner is rarely able to relax, convinced he is going to lose his beloved. Their unions are characterised by bouts of jealousy and irrationality, and the relationship becomes the overriding central experience of the person's life. In Lee's (1976) view, mania seldom ends happily. Even once terminated the relationship occupies the manic partner's thoughts for a period far disproportional to the duration of the relationship. Generally the manic lover has a great need to be in love. He is likely to be insecure, lonely and dependent, looking for love to rescue him from his misery. Once in a relationship the manic lover clings to it like a life-raft, strategising constantly to test its boundaries, but ever fearful of its imminent collapse. Lee (1976) notes that from a psychological perspective, the manic lover has a profound self-despisal. Although like eros he yearns for a deep intimate union, he lacks the self-esteem to believe he deserves to be loved, and like ludus, believes almost anyone will do, yet unlike ludus, he cannot let go. Yet Lee maintains that in rare circumstances, manic love can endure and perhaps thrive, though this is most likely where the partner is a strong eros. This combination could allow support for the manic partner in converting self- despisal into self-worth.

3.2.5 Pragma - Storge + Ludus For some people choosing a partner becomes a practical exercise, in which one almost shops for a compatible partner. Once the correct ingredients are recognised in someone else, the union proceeds and love is slowly expected to warm up. The compatibility can be sought on various levels, but is most likely to focus on characteristics like values and attitudes rather than physical appearance and sexual concord. As its name suggests, pragma is not a search for an impossible dream, but instead a practical operation to solicit the right partner. Its a cognitive quest and emotions are considered more of a hindrance

52 than a guide. Being practical, pragma looks ahead in an attempt to speculate where their partner will be a year, 5 years, 10 years, and 20 years from now. The pragmatic lover is also concerned about the partner's family background, friends and associates, and hence the search is not focused on the partner only, but also other familial baggage the partner comes with. Love is seen almost as a business transaction, or an investment, and the data comprising the "deal" are inspected closely.

The ludic component of pragma is most evident in the detached weighing of alternatives, the deliberate substitutability of partners and the controlled emotional restraint. Unlike ludus, pragma is not intent on playing an endless game, but rather on finding one satisfying relationship. The storgic component is witnessed in the slow developmental pace of love, yet is far more controlling and deliberate in its intentions. Where storge is content to let events unfold, pragma is more goal oriented. This covering of all bases, makes pragma the most enduring of all relationships. The pragmatic partners are usually realistic about love's foibles and hence anticipate problem areas instead of being taken by surprise. It is a rational control of emotions, with little expectation that love is a paradise.

3.2.6 Agape - Storge + Eros The most altruistic, selfless form of love is agape (pronounced a-ga-pay), which is a love of service, obligation and duty. The agapic lover does not expect his love to be reciprocated, and is intent only on giving regardless of the difficulties or benefits. The agapic lover considers it a duty to love, even in the absence of loving feelings (Lee, 1988). Lee (1976) states that agape in its purest form is a rare find, and is almost beyond the possibilities of human nature. It is analogous to religious devotion, but normally in religion, people expect a return - even if it is reserved for the life hereafter. Sexual gratification, a given in the other styles, is seen as a self-sacrifice in agape. On one level , agape taken in a purist sense is an ideal and manifestation in reality would be minuscule or non-existent. On a

53 more realistic level, there are people who could be described as agapic, but who require some form of reciprocation or love with some degree of self-interest, and hence are not totally selfless.

3.3 Lovestyle Combinations Lee (1976) believes that the main lovestyles identified are all equally valid and should not be judged as one being better than another. It is instead a matter of finding the correct combination for a particular couple. Mutual love is not seen as a quantity, as in loving the same amount, but rather as a quality, the way people love (Lee, 1988). In terms of Lee's analogy, these are two people whose colours make a good match. The different styles depict howsomeone loves, and what is meaningful to an eros, may be a hindrance to a ludus. It is certainly not necessary that each partner have the same lovestyle, though it is preferable that the styles are reciprocal. Yet in the context of his model, Lee (1976) acknowledges that mutual love need not necessarily be happy love, for example two manic lovers could lead lives of tortured, possessive agony. Neither is mutual love necessarily enduring, as would be expected by a ludic couple. Lee does suggest that in terms of his model, the further apart two lovestyles on the colour wheel (see below), the more difficulty can be expected in their marital adjustment. Ludus

Mania

Eros

Agape

Figure 3.1 The lovestyle Palette.

54 Ludic and agapic lover would be expected to have a difficult relationship. Similarly an eros and pragma could be expected to have differing love requirements. storge and pragma however could be a more workable combination, as could mania and eros. Although mania and ludus conform to the proximity rule, Lee (1988) notes that this is an exception. He further cautions (Lee, 1976) that the colour wheel should serve only as a rough guide. Because the lovestyle discussed are substantially general, some people may not emerge as truly dominant in one style, and could bridge two or three styles. They may be in transition between the styles, or perhaps have an alliance of contrasting loving modalities.

3.4 Further Research Lee's model has attracted a range of researchers who have experimented with its various facets. It has several features which make it attractive for further study. Firstly it is an interesting theory, secondly it is multidimensional, and finally it is scientifically based (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986). Early attempts at creating a reliable measuring instrument for Lee's. model produced mixed results, yet the advent of the Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) instrument gave new impetus and new opportunity to broaden the theoretical and practical foundations for further research. They found Lee's theory to be viable, and the six types of love to be factorially distinct. The instrument is referred to as the Love Attitudes Scale, and consists of 42 items (6 for each style), each measured on a 5 point likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

3.4.1 Lovestyles and Gender Hendrick and Hendrick's (1986) initial study using the new instrument, found that those who reported being in love most often were likely to be ludic. These were also significantly more likely to be males, however the overall number of ludus for both genders was small. Yancy and Berglass (1991) also found that men were more likely to be ludic, but also that men were significantly more likely to be satisfied in a ludic relationship than women. Hendrick and Hendrick also found

55 that females were significantly more erotic, storgic, pragmatic and manic than males. Both these gender differences are consistent with evolutionary psychology theories of mate selection (Buss and Schmitt,1993), for example that men are more permissive (ludic) and females more strategic (pragma). Interestingly, as discussed by Lee (1976), subjects with a higher self-reportedself- esteem were more erotic, whilst those with a lower self-esteem were more manic.

The study by Mallandain and Davies (1994) replicated many of the results above, but found no association between females and eros, pragma or mania. They did confirm the connection between females and storge, but in addition found that females were less likely to be agapic.

3.4.2 Lovestyles and the Process of Love The phenomenon of "falling in love", although often easy to recognise, is difficult to understand scientifically. Hendrick and Hendrick (1988b) speculate that the various lovestyles may emerge as attitudes in a single individual during the initial process of falling in love. They hypothesise that eros would be a large component of the process, but that in the uncertainty of the situation, the individual's experience is heightened, they have difficulty relaxing and become more obsessive. This combination of experiences is close to the manic attitude. At the same time, the need to "unselfishly" be of service to each other is more representative of an agapic style. At this time ludus should be the most remote style. As the relationship evolves, there might be additional shifts, with storge and pragma increasing whilst eros and agape diminish. Given this scenario, the flux in lovestyles is seen as a temporary response to a stimulating situation, and the person's dominant lovestyle will return to its pre-love state.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1988) set up a study to test these various theories. Using a sample of 235 university students, which in this case was ideal, since about half of responded affirmatively to "being in love now". About 13% of the sample

56 who reported never having been in love, were excluded from further analysis. As hypothesised those in love subscribed more strongly to eros and agape. They believed less strongly in sexual permissiveness (sex with many others) as well as sexual instrumentality (sex as purely physical), but more in sexual communion. Interestingly subjects in love reported higher self-esteem. Predictions regarding mania were not confirmed, and the authors suggest this effect may have been too transitory to measure in this sample, since the heightened manic response is hypothesised to be in effect only during at the inception of the relationship - perhaps the first two weeks.

In essence the study indicates that people in love differ from people not in love in several areas, including self-perception and romantic belief system attitudes. Although some marriage unions may experience negative consequences as people revert to their pre-love states, Hendrick and Hendrick (1988) indicate that some of the transformations brought about through a love state, such as heightened self-esteem, may be more permanent, or at least as permanent as the union.

3.4.3 Lovestyles: Trait or Attitude Lee's (1976) typology referred to the lovestyles as re/ative/yfixed. He did indicate that that may change across relationships or even in the course of a single relationship, but also suggested that within enduring relationships, the styles become more permanent. Levy and Davis (1988) certainly indicate that adjustments in lovestyles across time are to be expected. Yet even within the framework of these changes, and taking account of critical relationship transitions (falling in love, getting married, breaking up), it is intriguing to establish possible links between lovestyles, and more stable personality characteristics. Lee also detailed some of the possible personality constituents that went with each style (see 3.2) hence implying that there could be personality correlates associated with each style. This notion was explored by other researchers.

57 Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) argue the interesting possibility that the lovestyles may be both a trait and an attitude. They explain this by suggesting that the lovestyles represent a multi-dimensional matrix in each individual, and that situational and constitutional factors determine which dimensions are bolstered at a particular time. In a later paper (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1988) they expand on this idea by writing that the various conceptions of love are observed / learned / experienced whilst growing up, and depending on background some of these conceptions may be held more strongly than others.

Taking the issue further, Mallandain and Davies (1994), investigated other associations between lovestyles and personality characteristics. They specifically looked at self-esteem, emotionality and impulsivity. Contrary to predictions, eros a highly passionate and intense style, was not associated with emotionality. Ludus on the other hand, thought to be avoiding of emotionality had an unexpected association. The correlation between mania and emotionality was as predicted, given mania's possessive and dependent elements. This was consistent with Williams and Schill's (1994) study reporting a correlation between mania and self-defeating personality characteristics. As a side issue, the authors also found a negative correlation between age and eros i.e. older people do not seem to be as readily enticed by physical appearance.

A study done by Taraban and Hendrick (1995) sought to establish what general perceptions people had in terms of personality traits and the six lovestyles. Although their study was theoretical, in that hypothetical Love Attitude Scale profiles were created, the results were interesting and appeared consistent with others of a similar nature. There was almost no overlap between the perceived personality traits of the different lovestyles. These perceptions, and the correlations from the other studies mentioned are summarised below.

58 Table 3.1 Lovestyles and Personality Correlates Style Personality Characteristic

Eros High self-esteem; extroversion; sexual; self-disclosing Mania Low self-esteem; neuroticism; emotionality; impulsivity; jealous; possessive; obsessed; emotional; self-defeating Ludus High sensation seeking; extroversion; emotionality; impulsivity; inconsiderate; secretive Pragma Low sensation seeking; family oriented; hard working Agape Low self-esteem; low sensation seeking; committed; giving Storge Low self-esteem; honest; loyal; mature

Table 3.1 Correlates of Lovestyles and Personality characteristics.

Mallandain and Davies conclude that although there is some support for the trait theory of lovestyles, it is not conclusive, and complicated by the transient nature and situation determinants of the individual's style.

3.4.4 Lovestyles across Cultures At time of writing, no known study of lovestyles in a South African culture exist. However at least some exploration of lovestyles across cultures other than Caucasian North America have been attempted. In a study of a Latino population in California, Leon, Parra and Cheng (1995) measured attitudes towards the various lovestyles and found endorsement for eros, storge and agape, while ludus and mania were least favoured. This mirrors a similar attitude in the non-Latino population. In terms of gender however, Leon et al found a significantly higher number of women than men endorsed agape, while this was not a factor in the non-Latino population.

59 A study by Dion and Dion (1993) looked at lovestyles from an ethnocultural perspective. They used a sample consisting of 4 ethnocultural categories, namely Anglo-Celtic, European, Chinese and Other-Asian. Across all cultures men dominated the ludic style, while women were significantly higher on storge and pragma. Both Chinese and other-Asian scored significantly higher for storge than the other cultural groups. It thus appears that this group, which represents a more collectivist sociology, endorses the love as friendship ideal significantly more than found in individualistic (western) cultures. The study also revealed evidence that women in non-western cultures were significantly more likely to be altruistic (agapic) than their western counterparts.

In a study comparing lovestyles in the United States and France, Murstein, Merighi and Vyse (1991) found some significant differences. Americans were higher on storge and mania, while the French were higher on agape. American women were much more likely to be storge than their French counterparts, and similarly for French women and agape. This finding may have something to do with the educational systems of both countries, in which Americans generally attend mixed gender schools, while the French are prone to favour separate schools for their youth. Murstein et al suggest that the higher incidence of agape in France could reflect the established greater idealisation of romantic love there, coupled with a generally more fervent Catholicism in France. The authors of the study did not expect the scores of greater mania in America, and speculate that it may be due to the American inclination to openly express emotions. The comparable situation in France is treated with substantially more privacy. Men from both samples were found to be significantly higher on ludus (consistent with other studies in the United States) and agape (attributed mainly to the French sample). Interestingly the same study contained questionnaire items regarding self-esteem, and on this construct Americans proved significantly higher than the French. In essence the study suggests that although there may be some universally stable lovestyle characteristics, national idiosyncrasies in different countries are also likely to emerge.

60 3.4.5 Lovestyles and other Correlates 3.4.5.1 Lovestyles and Life Satisfaction In this study, Yancy and Berglass (1991) found that agape and storge were positively related to life satisfaction, while a manic lovestyle was a significant indicator of an unsatisfying life. A ludic lovestyle was predictive of life satisfaction in men but not in women. This once again suggests the prevailing doubling standard in which there seems to be a greater social acceptance for men rather than women to be involved in game-playing love. A necessary caution is however the premarital, and distinctly student complexion of the sample. Lee's (1976) description of ludic males is that they often become frustrated in adult life, however this could only be tested with a matured sample.

3.4.5.2 Lovestyles and Conflict Handling Richardson, Hammock, Lubben and Mickler (1989) sought to establish if there was a link between lovestyles and the way conflicts were mediated in a relationship. Conflict was defined in terms of 5 types (Richardson et al, 1989, p. 431) and are summarised as:

Integrating information exchange, collaboration, solution oriented Obliging Satisfying other person, giving in Dominating Using power, "winning", own needs Avoiding withdrawal, ignoring conflict, unconcerned Compromising give and take

Both eros and agape were strongly correlated in a positive direction with integrating and less strongly correlated with obliging and compromising. Since eros is a committed union, and agape is a selfless union, this general trend towards resolving conflicts is consistent with the style. It also implies that the commitment characteristic of eros requires skills to handle the inevitable conflicts which go with close and rewarding relationships. Agape revealed a

61 negative correlation with dominating. Ludus was negatively correlated with integrating and positively correlated with avoiding. This makes sense, since the Ludic lover is not committed to the relationship, and hence resolving conflict issues is not a high priority. Pragma lovestyles also were more likely than other, except ludus, to try avoid conflicts, rather than resolve them. This may indicate that the pragmatic partner, who is more expedient in his mate selection and more practical in his relationship management, avoids the emotional labyrinth associated with solving emotional difficulties.

3.4.5.3 Lovestyles and Sexual Attitudes The relationship between love attitudes and sexual attitudes was explored by Adler and Hendrick (1991). This study replicated the earlier study by Hendrick and Hendrick (1987) of eros being associated with a higher self-esteem. It also found that eros men and women were more responsible in their use of contraceptives. This is possibly the case as the eros style would tend to be in more committed long term relationships. Ludic women however, who would tend to be in more superficial relationships, were the least likely to take responsibility for contraception. The study indicated a correlation between sexual self-esteem and contraceptive behaviour. This implies that people who feel better about themselves are more likely to be pro-active in taking responsible sexual decisions. None of the remaining lovestyles indicated any correlations with sexual attitudes.

3.4.6 Lovestvles and other Love Measures 3.4.6.1 Lovestvles and Attachment There appear to be significant overlaps between the typologies of love from both attachment and lovestyle perspectives. Several studies have sought to examine the overlaps and commonalties between them.

In terms of Hazan and Shaver's (1987) conception of relationships, people who perceived their parents as inconsistent or cold, could experience related

62 problematic difficulties in their romantic attachments. Williams and Schill (1994) were interested to establish if there was any link between the attachment style, lovestyle, and self-defeating personality characteristics. Ludic women, were significantly more likely to have attached insecurely (anxious/ambivalent or avoidant). Self-defeating men and women were most likely to be manic, constantly seeking to monopolise their mates attention. This correlated strongly with their insecure attachments, and their possessive behaviours could possibly be related to their early fears of abandonment.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1988) speculate that eros and possibly storge and pragma could be secure lovestyles, mania an anxious/ambivalent style and ludus an avoidant style. Levy and Davis took these hypotheses further and did a specific study of the relationship between lovestyles and attachment styles. They found eros and agape to be related to secure attachment, ludus was negatively correlated with secure attachment, and positively correlated with avoidant attachment style. This results suggest that those who establish secure attachments behaviours are likely to be comfortable with emotional closeness. As predicted, mania was positively correlated with anxious/ambivalent attachment, though in the former situation Levy and Davis view the relationship as intense but conventional, while in the latter it is seen as more pathological. Neither pragma or storge revealed any significant correlations with the attachment styles. Levy and Davis's study included a factor analysis of the attachment and lovestyle variables combined. Based on the results from this, they question pragma's suitability as a distinct lovestyle, and suggest rather that some degree of practicality is probably accounted for in each of the other lovestyles.

3.4.7 Lovestyles and Relationship Satisfaction The quality of any relationship is determined by a host of factors. The intrapsychic variables of the individuals, the features of the relationship as an entity, environmental forces and biological considerations, are only some of the

63 contributing factors. Several researchers have also considered the idiosyncratic nature of an individual's love to also weigh significantly in the equation. Indeed the scope of this research is focused on attempting to isolate the influence of the prevailing lovestyles in marital relationships. For this reason any research in this general area is of particular interest, and several related studies have been done.

3.4.7.1 Relationship Qualities One of the first studies done using the Love Attitude Scale of Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) was done by Davis and Latty-Mann (1987), and inter alia looked at optimum partnership combinations for the different lovestyles. They used the following set of relationship qualities ; Viability: consisting of trust, respect, acceptance and tolerance Intimacy: under and confiding Care: giving, providing assistance, championing the others interests Passion: experiencing fascination, exclusiveness and sexual intimacy Conflict and ambivalence

Eros had positive correlations for both sexes with passion and care, and for males with intimacy. In support of Lee's theory, the highest correlation with eros was passion. Agape had positive correlations for men with viability and intimacy, and with viability, intimacy, care and passion for women. Ludus was positively related to conflict / ambivalence, and negatively related to viability, intimacy and passion for men as well as care for women. Somewhat surprisingly, storge, pragma or mania were not significantly related to any of the relationship characteristics, though the young age (average 22) of the participants and relatively short relationship durations, might account for some of the expectations not being met.

In terms of partner combinations, this proved to be the case on eros, storge and agape. This implies that for these lovestyles, couples tend to look for or fall in love

64 with couples with the same styles. It makes logical sense that mania and ludus would not be well suited in relationships with partners of a similar type. Pragma, for as yet unexplained reasons, do not particularly shop for other pragmas.

3.4.7.2 Relationship Satisfaction Hendrick, Hendrick and Adler (1988a), using a university population of dating couples, found a positive correlation between eros and satisfaction in the relationship. As expected, ludus also had a strong association with relationship satisfaction, but this time negatively. This implies that to be satisfied in a relationship, the partners are best served when they are honest, intense and committed (Lee, 1976), and least served when game-playing. Interestingly agapic women had satisfied partners, but were not necessarily satisfied themselves. Hendrick and Hendrick note the limitations of this study, including the small undergraduate sample, and the short-term distortions of dating relationships. A later study by Yancy and Berglass (1991), using the early Laswell and Laswell (1976) instrument, found that the lovestyle which best predicted satisfaction in romantic relationships, was agape, while mania was similarly unsatisfying. The contrast in results from the Hendrick's study and this research, could at least partly be attributed to the different lovestyle instruments used. In addition however, unlike the Hendrick et al study, the Yancy and Berglass sample was not made up exclusively of people currently in a relationship, and they suggest that this may be an important moderator of the way people respond.

3.4.7.3 Marriage and Lovestyles Using an early lovestyle instrument devised by Lasswell and Lasswell (1976), Martin, Blair, Nevels and Fitzpatrick (1990) examined a sample of married couples in terms of their lovestyles. If the wife was manic or ludic, the husband was significantly likely to be dissatisfied, while if she was eros or storge, there would also be a significant chance of the husband being satisfied. An agapic wife was likely to result in a satisfied husband and a satisfied wife. For a husband,

65 the positive lovestyles of his wife were storge, agape and eros, while there was a negative correlation with satisfaction with a ludic wife. Using multiple regression analysis, this study found that a wife's style of loving could account for 54% of the variance of marital satisfaction, however, the husband's style of loving did not account for anything on this variable.

The study by Martin et al (1990) covers very similar research territory to that of this dissertation but three reasons make this study relevant: firstly Martin et al's use of an unrefined lovestyle instrument, secondly and similarly their use of an outmoded marital adjustment test, and finally and most importantly, the relevance of doing the study on a local sample. The South African population could be significantly different to that of other countries. This study will thus allow a comparison of styles and attitudes towards loving in this country to those elsewhere.

3.4.7.4 Existential Love Qualities A similar question of relationship satisfaction was asked by Hecht, Marston and Larkey (1994). Their study did not use Lee's model as a basis, but an existential polyvalent (combining in any number of ways) and subjective account of love experience known as "love ways". Through a combination of interviews, and analysis of responses to their preliminary instrument, the authors uncovered 5 "gestalts", namely intuitive love, companionate love, secure love, traditional love and committed love. The authors emphasise that their model does not represent a typology of love, but rather that each experience of love is unique, and the categories should not be seen as exhaustive or mutually exclusive. Relationship quality was seen in terms of social penetration theory, which explains itself in terms of communication behaviours between relationship partners. From these love ways and communication behaviours, Hecht et al found that those individuals who experienced committed love perceived their relationships of a higher quality than the other ways. Committed love is

66 described as being "...communicated through expressions of future commitment and by spending time together." (Hecht et al, 1994 p. 26). The study also measured the way couples joint/y experience, and in this case it was found that a joint experience of companionate love is more satisfying than joint high levels of any other experience. Companionate love is described as being "...communicated through mutual support ... saying "I love you' ... [and] ... discussion of intimate topics." (Hecht et al, 1994 p. 26). A third finding was that those who seek security in loving relationships have most satisfaction when they form a union with someone else seeking security in a similar way.

3.5 Conclusion Research on the role of lovestyles in interpersonal relationships is increasing. This may not be because lovestyles are the final answer on the issue, but rather because the theory lends itself to scientific scrutiny of love. Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) who were initially largely responsible for developing lovestyles research, consider Lee's typology to be (p. 393) "...exceedingly rich theoretically, both because of its multidimensionality and grounding in research, and because it encompasses less extensive love theories that have been proposed ...". The numbers of other researchers, for example Lasswell and Lobsenz (1980); Davis and Latty-Mann (1987); Yancey and Berglass (1991); Dion and Dion (1993); who have used Lee's typology, lends avid testimony to the usefulness of the model. Of late however, the research appears more centered around finding commonalties and interrelationships amongst the different models, for example Levy and Davis (1988); Hendrick and Hendrick (1991); Williams and Schill (1994). In addition, because of the range of the typology, lovestyles is well suited to cross-cultural research and examining the similarities and differences of loving across the world.

67 Chapter 4. Research Methodology .

"We believe that all the ramifications for future research are worth pursuing. What is more important than love ?" Clyde and Susan Hendrick

4.1 Introduction In order to answer the various hypothetical questions regarding the relationships between lovestyles and dyadic adjustment, a sample of South Africans was required to participate. Through performing statistical analyses of the data, it was envisaged that it would be possible to compare the results with those found in other countries, and more specifically, to meet the aims of this study described earlier.

4.2 Research Design The type of research is referred to by Kerlinger(1986) as nonexperimental and is characterised by having no direct control of the independent variable, as it cannot be manipulated. In this study the independent variable is the lovestyle of the individuals within the relationship, while the dependent variable is their marital adjustment. According to Kerlinger, this inability to manipulate the lovestyles of the individuals could be regarded as a weakness as control is sacrificed. However a study involving relationship types could not get around this problem without entertaining ethical dilemmas of a serious magnitude. It does mean that extra care must be taken in analysing the results and extrapolating the information. Any conclusions regarding causality between lovestyles and marital adjustment must be made with deliberate circumspection.

68 4.3 Subjects The final sample consisted of 108 individuals (n = 54 couples) who had been randomly selected tp participate in the study. In this group, 35% (n = 19) were Afrikaans speaking and 65% (n = 35) were English speaking. The average age of the male respondents was 39 years 11 months and female respondents was 36 years 5 months. The average duration of their marriages was 11 years 3 months. 12% of the sample had been married more than once.

4.4 Procedure The male and female of the couple were given separate questionnaires to fill out, with instructions not to collude in their responses. The questionnaire also contained some background information, instructions for answering and space for additional information. (see annexures B and D). The questionnaires comprised of an adaptation of the Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) Love Attitude Scale (LAS), as well as Spanier's (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Forms were available in English and Afrikaans.

The defining criterion was that the couple were married, however race also played a role. Although it would have been highly desirable to have accommodated other population groups into the study, this would have been extremely difficult both in terms of logistics and interpretation. Extensive attention has been given to differences between western and non-western sociological norms (e.g. Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca (1988); Markus & Kitayama (1991)), and a mixed South African sample would definitely involve at least two diametrically opposite world views, namely individualism and collectivism. Beall and Sternberg (1995) reinforce this notion by arguing that love is not a universally similarly experienced, but a socially constructed concept which is experienced and defined differently by different cultures. To add to the difficulties, South African cultures are not homogenous entities. Rather individual groups can differ widely and fundamentally in many social practises including marital norms. Charlton (1996) exploring the differences of South African black groups points

69 out that there are even large ingroup differences. For example the Zulu of KwaZulu/Natal consider themselves vastly different from the Zulu of Gauteng. Kamo (1993) supports this indicating that not only are comparative studies methodologically difficult and costly, but that the epistemological meaning of questions also differs across cultures thus contributing even more possible sources of contamination. Besides these interpretive problems, the translation of questionnaires into several additional languages would have been economically prohibitive. Although a cross-cultural study involving the depth and breadth of South Africa's diverse population is fully warranted, the complexity of such a work demands a different approach, and deserves to be a comprehensive treatise in its own right.

4.5 Measuring Instruments Attempts to measure marital satisfaction have a long and varied history. Spanier (1976) cites Hamilton's study of 1929 as the forerunner to modern instruments and goes on to list some 17 instruments published between 1933 and 1968 which concerned various forms of marital adjustment/satisfaction/happiness. The measurement of love covers a somewhat shorter lifespan. Only 26 years ago, Rubin (1970) lamented the dearth of attention devoted to love and its measurement. This situation has been exponentially reversed in the last decade alone, by a plethora of instruments devoted to the task. The current study makes use of two of the instruments, both commonly used, as a means of addressing the research hypotheses.

4.5.1 The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Dyadic adjustment is often studied in relationship research using a range of different instruments. The history of the variable goes back over 65 years (Spanier, 1976), and the present instrument was developed out of analysis and rationalisation of over 300 items from other instruments. Factor analysis indicates the four main empirical components (dyadic satisfaction, dyadic consensus, dyadic cohesion and affectional expression) to be independent factors. The

70 questionnaire consists of 30 items which can be completed in a few minutes. The adapted scale has a theoretical range of between 30 and 181. Criterion- related validity appears to be high, with the difference in scores between married and divorced couples significant at a .001 level. Construct validity is given as .86 while the reported reliability (Pretorius, 1988) of .92 is also highly satisfactory. The questionnaire is attached as annexure C, and its Afrikaans translation as annexure E.

Dyadic adjustment is defined by Spanier (1976 p. 17) as "... a process of movement along a continuum which can be evaluated in terms of proximity to good or poor adjustment". The definition emphasises that dyadic adjustment is seen as a process, and that any evaluative assessment is a snapshot somewhere along a time continuum. To fully exploit this scenario requires a longitudinal design, with evaluations taken at various critical points in time. Although this study does not explore this dimension, it does have information regarding lovestyles through the time dimension but this only exists across the relationship sample of the participants. This may indicate some possible conclusions of how dyadic adjustment changes with time.

In his review, Norton (1983) criticises the DAS from a technical perspective, challenging its construction in a number of areas. He notes for example that its items are inappropriately weighted and disproportionately used. In terms of the weights, Norton (p.142) gives an example how identical scores can be achieved in instances where the one relationship is obviously healthier than the other. In terms of disproportion involved, Norton indicates the somewhat arbitrary nature of 15 items being related to mutual agreement, whilst 4 items relate to mutual affection. The consequences are that if a particular marriage has problems of affection, but not of communication, this could be masked in the final total. Trost (1985) scrutinises the DAS from a more theoretical framework, and takes issue with the term "adjustment", suggesting that Spanier (1976) does not define it clearly enough. He writes that about half the items in the DAS concern

71 agreements between the partners, and questions whether agreements necessarily indicate healthy adjustment, and if so adjustment to what.

In light of these criticisms the DAS may harbour some inherent flaws which suggest its use may be less than optimum. Fincham and Bradbury (1987) indicate that several new instruments show promise in measuring marital quality, but these have not been taken up by the research community. Spanier (1985) recognises some of the DAS's faults, but contends that although dyadic adjustment could use contemporary refinement, total abandonment would be an unproductive over-reaction.

4.5.2 The Love Attitude Scale (LAS) Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) note the tendency for love research to have steered away from global concepts of love, to more multidimensional constructs. Following this trend, and using Lee's (1976) typology, they developed the Love Attitude Scale. Since the scale has become common currency in love research, its psychometric properties have been studied, most notably by Thompson and Borrello (1987), Borrello and Thompson (1990a) and Borrello and Thompson (1990b). Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) reported the reliability of their instrument as .70+, with factor analysis indicating sufficiently independent factors consistent with Lee's typology. There were two notes of caution however, with storge showing a slightly dubious alpha coefficient (.62), while agape indicated some modest correlations with 4 of the other scales. The instrument is nonetheless regarded as highly usable, and Borrello and Thompson (1990a p. 329), state that the measure "... yields a six-dimensional orthogonal structure corresponding to the elements of Lee's typology." The validity of the measure is strongly supported in the study done by Borrello and Thompson (1990a), who note two minor factor correlations, but endorse the instrument's further use in research.

72 Interestingly a hierarchical factor analysis of the LAS done by Borrello and Thompson (1990b) indicated six first order constructs of Lee's typology. This implies that Lee's primary and secondary colour analogy may be a little dubious and rather that the typology exists in one dimension only. Thus Lee's conception of pragma and agape deriving out of ludus, eros and storge, may not be scientifically accurate. There is something of a case however for mania (from ludus and eros). Thompson and Borrello (1992) did some further research using the Hendrick-Hendrick instrument to establish if there was any factor underlying the other six, a "g" of love. The closest they got, was a fundamental element comprising a mania-agape combination. This they would suggest is at the root of all love in Lee's typology.

The LAS developed by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) was designed for couples easily obtainable as samples within the university population. The orientation of the questionnaire is thus towards a dating population rather than more permanent partnerships. Since this study is intrinsically about married couples, the questions were accordingly adapted. This is in line with Hendrick and Hendrick (1990) research using an instrument adapted for specific relationships. The original version is presented as annexure A while the adapted version is annexure B and the Afrikaans translation is annexure D. According to Hendrick and Hendrick (1990), although a relationship specific version was developed, individual scores vary only negligibly depending on which version they completed. The scale consists of 42 items, with seven items devoted to each type. Final scores are summed, and the direction of the scale dictates that the lowest of the six scores is the individual's lovestyle. Where there is ambiguity about which lovestyle is a person's lowest, the individual would not be able to be used for all the analyses.

Some additional background information was asked of each respondent viz.; gender, age, length of current marriage, number of times previously married

73 and home language. Respondents were given the option of writing their names on their forms if they were interested in receiving feedback.

4.6 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1, 2 3 and 4 follow from Lee's (1976) study particularly his notion that particular styles of loving are better combinations than others. Hypothesis 4 and 5 are included to confirm whether the South African population has similarities with the American population as measured by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986).

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant correlation between the Male's lovestyle and his spouse's dyadic adjustment.

Hypothesis 2 There is a significant correlation between the Female's lovestyle and her spouse's dyadic adjustment.

Hypothesis 3. There is a significant effect between particular couple's styles of loving combinations and dyadic adjustment.

Hypothesis 4. Men are more significantly more likely to be ludus than women.

Hypothesis 5. Significantly more women than men will be agape, storge and pragma.

Hypothesis 6. There will be a significant correlation between duration of marriage and I) Storgic lovestyles ii) Dyadic adjustment.

74 4.7 Statistical Measures Hypotheses 1 and 2 will be measured by using Pearson product-moment correlations between each partner's style of loving, and their spouse's dyadic adjustment score.

Analysis of variance will be used for hypothesis 3, to establish if a particular combination of lovestyles lend themselves to dyadic adjustment.

Hypotheses 4 and 5 will use the Wilcoxon Signed-ranks test to analyse the difference between means.

Hypothesis 6 will use Pearson product moment correlations to determine the relationships between duration of marriage and storge and duration of marriage and dyadic adjustment.

75 Chapter 5 - Results .

Cleopatra: If it be love indeed, tell me how much ? Anthony: There's beggery in the love that can be reckon'd William Shakespeare Anthony and Cleopatra

5.1 Introduction Three main types of statistical analyses were done: Pearson Correlations Kruskal-Wallis one way ANOVA Test for significance of differences between two means.

In all analyses a 0,05 level of significance was used. Where Pearson correlations were used (as in hypothesis 1), the determining indicator of statistical significance was p (probability of correlation), and in all cases refers to the probability that the result occurred by chance. If the p value was 0,05 or less, this therefore indicates a less than 5% probability that the correlation was erroneous. The direction of the r (correlation) values in these tables is important. Because the lower a person's score on any lovestyle is an indicator of the extent to which the person is that lovestyle, it follows that negative (-1) implies a positive correlation, whilst positive r (-±L) implies a negative correlation.

With each hypothesis to follow, the null (Ho) and alternative (HA) hypotheses are first formally presented, followed by a description of the result and an analysis table. In all cases, the alternative hypothesis, was the one attempted at being validated.

5.2 Descriptive Statistics The descriptive statistics are not part of any hypothesis, but they help to give an overall picture of the sample group. Table 5.1 presents an encapsulated summary of the lovestyle diversity in the sample. It depicts counts of each lovestyle for each gender. The rows, reading across, give the numbers of the

76 females each lovestyle, whilst the columns do the same for the males. If eros is used as an example, then the table indicates that there were a total of 15 eros men and 17 eros women. Table 5.1 can also be used as a cross tabulation of how the couples were comprised. For example "8" in the first row and column indicates there were 8 couples where the male and female were both eros. The number "3" to the right of that indicates that there were 3 couples where the male was storge and the female was eros. In a similar manner all possible couple combinations from the sample can be read off from the table. The row and column termed "multiple" refers to individuals where there was ambiguity in interpreting the lovestyle.

Table 5.1 Cross-tabulation of male and female lovestyles. Male Lovestyle Eros Storge Pragma Agape Multiple Total Female Lovestyle

Eros 8 3 0 5 1 17 Storge 4 6 0 2 2 14 Pragma 0 1 0 1 0 2 Agape 2 1 0 7 2 12 Multiple Style 1 0 1 6 1 9 Total 15 11 1 21 6 54

Importantly all six lovestyles are present in each person's profile to some extent. This occurs very much in the same way that each factor in a 16PF is also present in each person's personality profile. Therefore someone who measures positively as an eros, will have some degree of ludus, pragma, storge, mania and agape in their profile as well.

77 Table 5.2 below details the frequency of which each lovestyle was represented in each gender. The frequencies are listed as a simple count, and as a percentage of the total number of people of that gender in the sample. This allows for simple comparisons between males and females. For example 31% of the females were eros, whilst the corresponding number for males was 28%. The column of means indicates the gender mean score for each lovestyle. For example 14.37 was the mean score of each female on eros. Each lovestyle has a possible range between 7 (total endorsement) and 35 (total rejection).

78 Table 5.2 Frequency table for male and female lovestyles. Female Male

Lovestyle Count Percent Mean Lovestyle Count Percent Mean Eros 17 31 14.37 Eros 15 28 13.72 Ludus 0 0 26.37 Ludus 0 0 25.37 Storge 14 26 14.88 Storge 11 20 15.85 Pragma 2 4 22.51 Pragma 1 2 22.92 Mania 0 0 23.37 Mania 0 0 24.61 Agape 12 22 14.11 Agape 21 39 12.98 Multiple Style 9 17 Multiple Style 6 11 Total 54 100 Total 54 100

5.3 Hypothesis 1 - Male Lovestyle and Female Dyadic Adjustment Ho: There is no significant correlation between the male's lovestyle and his spouse's dyadic adjustment. HA: There is a significant correlation between the male's lovestyle and his spouse's dyadic adjustment.

The hypothesis attempts to establish if the relationship between the husband's lovestyle and his wife's dyadic adjustment. As indicated in Table 5.3, the alternative hypothesis was accepted for eros, ludus and agape. The direction of the correlation is indicated by the sign of r . From the table it is therefore evident that the extent to which each male is either eros or agape will have a corresponding positive effect on his wife's dyadic adjustment. Similarly, but in the opposite direction, the extent to which each male is ludus, will negatively impact on the wife's dyadic adjustment. Table 5.3 also presents that the extent of male storge, pragma or mania had no effect on dyadic adjustment.

79 Table 5.3 Male lovestyle correlated to female dyadic adjustment Lovestyle: Pearson (r) p Male female adjustment female adjustment Eros -0,64 0,000* Ludus +0,47 0,000* Storge -0,16 0,241 Pragma +0,12 0,402 Mania +0,16 0,262 Agape -0,57 0,000* r = correlation * p < 0,05 p = probability

5.4 Hypothesis 2 - Female Lovestyle and Male Dyadic Adjustment Ho: There is no significant correlation between the female's lovestyle and her spouse's dyadic adjustment. HA: There is a significant correlation between the female's lovestyle and her spouse's dyadic adjustment.

The hypothesis is related to hypothesis 1, but examines the relationship between the wife's lovestyle and her husband's dyadic adjustment. As indicated in Table 5.4, the alternative hypothesis was similarly accepted for eros, ludus and agape. Although the amounts differ slightly from hypothesis 1, the results are a carbon copy. Table 5.4 indicates the same significant correlations. The more she is eros or agape, and the less she is ludus, the better adjusted her husband is likely to be. Once again storge, pragma and mania appeared to play no role in dyadic adjustment.

80 Table 5.4 Female lovestyle correlated to male dyadic adjustment.

Lovestyle: Pearson (r) p Female male adjustment male adjustment Eros -0,48 0,000* Ludus +0,31 0,020* Storge -0,22 0,105 Pragma +0,19 0,171 Mania -0,06 0,664 Agape -0,42 0,001* r = correlation *p<0,05 p = probability

As Table 5.5 indicates, the strongest correlation of this study was the relationship between one partner's adjustment and the other's. Thus the greater extent to which one partner's dyadic adjustment is measured, the higher the probability that their partner will also be dyadically well adjusted.

Table 5.5 Male dyadic adjustment correlated to female dyadic adjustment

Pearson (r) p female adjustment female adjustment Dyadic adjustment +0,76 0,000* r = correlation * p < 0,05 p = probability

81 5.5 Hypothesis 3 - Couple Lovestyle and Dyadic Adiustment Ho: There is no significant effect between particular couple's styles of loving combinations and dyadic adjustment. HA: There is a significant effect between particular couple's styles of loving combinations and dyadic adjustment.

This study intended an exploration of all possible combinations of lovestyles between partners. Since each partner can have any one of six lovestyles, there are 36 possible combinations and a sample of at least 400 couples would have been required as a minimum. It soon became apparent that this prohibitive volume of people was overly ambitious, and hence this hypothesis can only be tested in a limited way. As table 5.1 indicates, the largest combinations of lovestyles in this study belong to marriages where the partners belong to the same group. Table 5.1 indicates that eros-eros, agape-agape and storge-storge had n= 8, n=7 and n=6 respectively. The small sample created some aberrations of a normal distribution for this hypothesis, and thus a nonparametric ANOVA was required as the statistical test. As Kerlinger (1986) indicates, the robust nature of F and t nonparametric tests makes their usage common and acceptable. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was applied against the three same-group lovestyles and the balance of the couples were measured as a single category labelled combination . The analysis is thus asking whether marriages made up of the three said same lovestyles or the one multiple combination have any effect on dyadic adjustment. Table 5.6 indicates that a woman in an agape-agape union, is significantly likely to be better adjusted than a women in a mixed lovestyle union. The alternative hypothesis can thus only be accepted for this particular situation.

82 Table 5.6 Same lovestyle / combination lovestyle analysis of variance with female dyadic adjustment Eros - Storge - Agape - Combination Eros Storge Agape Female Dyadic adjustment Eros - Eros 0,00 Storge - Storge 1,457 0,00 Agape - Agape 0,336 1,727 0,00 Combination 1,744 0,225 2,069* 0,00 *p<0,05 Note: Medians significantly different if Z - value > 1,9600

The male dyadic adjustment is slightly more complex and table 5.7 indicates the interesting result that the mutual styles of storge-storge are significant compared to agape-agape. However the same result of an agape-agape union that was found for women, also applies to men, i.e. that men are significantly likely to be better adjusted when part of this type of marriage as opposed to a mixed lovestyle marriage. Table 5.7 Same lovestyle / combination lovestyle analysis of variance with male dyadic adjustment Eros - Storge - Agape - Combination Eros Storge Agape Male Dyadic adjustment Eros - Eros 0,00 Storge - Storge 0,697 0,00 Agape - Agape 1,760 2,314* 0,00 Combination 0,515 0,391 2,677* 0,00 *p<0,05 Note: Medians significantly different if Z-value > 1,9600

83 In general then, hypothesis three is confirmed for specific combinations of lovestyle only. For the sample tested, none of the many other combinations of lovestyles had any significant effects on dyadic adjustment.

5.6 Hypothesis 4 - Prevalence of Ludus by Gender Ho: There is no significant difference between the number of men and women who are ludus. HA: There is a significant difference between the number of men and women who are ludus.

Although no individual in the sample was categorised with a lovestyle of ludus, each person measures ludus to some extent. The high means of ludus reflected in Table 5.8 were the highest of any lovestyle, and hence indicate the greatest rejection of ludus, compared to any of the other lovestyles. As expected The Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test for difference in medians, indicated an insignificant Z- score. Therefore in addition to the dearth of ludic positive responses from the sample, there was also no real difference between men and women in this regard. The alternative hypothesis predicting that men and women would differ in their ludus scores is therefore rejected.

Table 5.8 Male ludus mean compared with female ludus mean. Ludus Ludus Z-Value Probability Mean male Mean Female level (X1) (X2) 25.37 26.37 1.25 0,21 Note: Medians Significantly different if Z-value > 1,9600

84 5.7 Hypothesis 5 - Prevalence of Selected Styles by gender

Ho: There is no significant difference between the number of women who are storge, pragma or agape, compared to men of the same styles. HA: There is a significant difference between the number of women who are storge, pragma or agape, compared to men of the same styles.

Table 5.2 lists the counts for men and women, and for this research as there was no individual who emerged clearly as pragma, only the differences between storge and agape were investigated. Table 5.9 presents the required statistical analysis, and finds that while there is a very strong trend between the difference in the agapic scores between men and women, they are not statistically different. Clearly this is the case for storge as well, whose difference is even less marked. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test for difference in medians, measures the difference between the mean extent to which each male and female is agapic and produces a similarly insignificant result. The alternative hypothesis predicting statistically significant differences must therefore be rejected.

Table 5.9 Comparison of male and female frequencies of agape and storge Lovestyle Female Male Z- count count score (Fc) (Mc) Agape 12 21 1,93 Storge 14 11 0,62 Note: Significantly different if Z-value > 1,9600

85 5.8 Hypothesis 6 5.8.1 Hypothesis 6a- Duration and Storge

Ho: There is no significant correlation between the duration of a marriage and a storge lovestyle. HA: There is a significant correlation between the duration of a marriage and a storge lovestyle.

This hypothesis tests the notion that couples tend to become storge as their marriages endure. Using Pearson correlations on both men and women, Table 5.10 reveals not the slightest hint of a result, and hence the alternative hypothesis must be rejected.

Table 5.10 Duration of marriage correlated to storge. Pearson (r) p

Duration Duration Male Storge -0,04 +0,75 Female Storge +0,06 +0,62 r = correlation * Q < 0,05 p = probability

5.8.2 Hypothesis 6b - Duration and Dyadic Adjustment

Ho: There is no significant correlation between the duration of a marriage and dyadic Adjustment. HA: There is a significant correlation between the duration of a marriage and dyadic Adjustment.

86 Pearson correlations were used to determine the relationship between duration of marriage and dyadic adjustment. Table 5.11 indicates that once again no correlation was found, and hence the alternative hypothesis must be rejected.

Table 5.11 Duration of Marriage correlated to Dyadic Adjustment Pearson (r) p

Duration Duration Male Adjustment +0,09 +0,49 Female Adjustment -0,12 +0,37 r = correlation * 2 < 0,05 p = probability

87 Chapter 6. Discussion of Results.

A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other as guardian of his solitude Rainer Maria Rilke 6.1 Introduction One of the primary reasons for doing the lovestyle research with a South African sample, was to compare the results with research done in other countries with similar populations. This asks fundamentally whether South African couples love differently to their foreign counterparts. This question can only be answered to a certain extent due to the limitations inherent in both the current research, and that conducted with married couples in other countries. The current research contains a sample limited to white South Africans, and at that not a sample of ideal size or demographic diversity. By the same token, much overseas research has tended to focus on more transient love relationships, involving the dating habits of college students. There are some, though few, notable exceptions, viz. Morrow, Clark and Brock (1995) as well as Martin, Blair, Nevels and Fitzpatrick (1990) both of which also focused on married couples. The dearth of research focusing on lovestyles and married couples compromises the replication of results.

6.2 Hypotheses 1 and 2 - Lovestyle and Dyadic Adjustment by Gender The results indicate that eros and agape have a positive relationship on the spouses marital satisfaction, whilst ludus has a negative effect. The other lovestyles did not indicate any significant effects. Although Lee (1976) stresses that no lovestyle should be judged as being better than another, this may not hold for marriage. For example ludus, which by nature may include

88 simultaneous relationships with several partners, is clearly an affront to most reasonable conceptions of marital satisfaction.

The results of the two first hypotheses suggest that for both men and women there are several useful components which contribute to their marital satisfaction. Eros is most profoundly associated with passion, and has strong elements of intensity and honesty (Lee, 1976). Agape on the other hand which Lee suggests is a hybrid of eros and storge, includes the notion of the duty and obligations of love. This has an implied element of loving unconditionally. Levy and Davis 988) concur, by reporting that in their study, eros and agape were associated with intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction, plus the ability to manage conflicts more constructively. Hence when either of eros or agape, together or apart, have enough presence in an individual's style, this bodes well for the success of the union. Interestingly Hendrick, Hendrick and Adler, using a sample of college students, found the same correlations of eros and agape with relationship satisfaction. Thus, in this regard dating couples and married couples, would not appear to differ markedly. Relationships were also found to be more successful to the extent that ludus was absent. Ludus is uncommitted transient love of a strategic nature, and would have little place in the trying arena of marital union, which by all accounts requires commitment, honesty and integrity if it is to succeed. Certainly the results indicate that successful marriages require both partners to be fulfilled, but this seems to suggest that the extent to which each partner spends achieving their partner's marital satisfaction, the greater will be the extent of their own. Although the details differ marginally, South African men and women would appear to want similar lovestyle elements from their partners. The findings that any agapic partner is likely to have the effect of a satisfied spouse, whilst a ludic partner is associated with a dissatisfied spouse are also reassuringly confirmed by Martin, Blair, Nevels and Fitzpatrick (1990). Their finding regarding significant positive male adjustment from a storgic wife, was however not confirmed, and may indicate that South African men do not respond as positively to their wife's being storgic, unless they are also storgic

89 (see 6.3). However Levy and Davis (1988) also found no correlation between storge and relationship characteristics. This seems to suggest that if one partner is storge and focused more on the friendship elements of the relationship, this only has positive implications if the other partner shares this style. A clash could certainly occur if there was a cross between storge and eros or storge and mania. This would seem to have a passionate partner on the one hand, whilst the other is more of a companion and friend, and they thus could function at different levels of romantic intensity.

6.3 Hypothesis 3 - Lovestyle and Dyadic Adjustment by Couples The agape-agape union of couples was the only one in this study which showed a significant positive result on dyadic adjustment. Lee (1976) refers to love in which both partners are the same lovestyle as mutual love. He does however caution against always expecting these to be perfect unions, even though both couples might have similar romantic values. It is interesting that the agape- agape union showed significantly better adjusted couples than any of the multiple styles. Typically a union in which both of the partners serve each other without expectation of reciprocity, might be considered to be too intense and demanding to achieve such an likelihood of dyadic adjustment. However, as Lee (1976) states, the agapic partner is intuitive to their spouse's needs, and ready to give the kind of loving required rather than focusing on self-interest. When both partners fulfil this role, it makes sense that there is a large degree of mutual satisfaction. The result that men in agape-agape relationships are significantly better adjusted that men in storge-storge or combination relationships, is particularly interesting. It suggests that men from this sample are more inclined to favour somewhat intense, serving relationships, than the perhaps less impassioned mundane friendships that relationships defined by storge. These results are in line with Yancy and Berglass (1991) who found that while both agape and storge are positively related to life satisfaction in general, agape emerged as the best predictor of romantic satisfaction. Given a more

90 comprehensive study, with a greater diversity of lovestyles well represented, the details of particular mixing and matching lovestyles could probably be more effectively ascertained.

6.4 Hypothesis 4 - Prevalence of Ludus by Gender There was no difference in this sample's result in regard to men being more ludic than women. This is despite several other studies have reported the higher incidence of ludus in the male population. For example Hendrick and Hendrick's (1986) groundbreaking initial research indicated such a finding, and was replicated by Mallandain and Davis (1994) as well as the cross-cultural study by Murstein, Merighi and Vyse (1991). The current research showed no ludic individuals in the entire sample, and the greatest rejection of ludic traits compared to any other style (see Table 5.2). This may be explained by this sample being composed of married couples only, and in that case, is somewhat gratifying. Since the ludic style is forged in deception it may sit uneasily with any married couples. The ludus style is typified not only by an absence of commitment, but is almost repulsed by the notion of remaining loyal to one relationship (Lee, 1976). Since commitment is regarded as one of the mainstays of any long-term relationship the paucity of this style in a marriage sample may be readily explainable. Alternatively any ludic individuals married and in the sample may have been less prone to reporting these traits in a questionnaire. Lee's (1976) hypothesis is that styles may go through phases in an individual's life, and this could apply in the ludic case. In this scenario, when a ludic individual meets the "right" person, their lovestyle transforms to something else before they settle down. A further possibility is that ludic individuals rarely marry as the style is mutually exclusive to the concept of permanent union.

6.5 Hypothesis 5 - Prevalence of Selected Styles by Gender None of the styles emerged as significantly associated with either gender. The Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) study revealed that women were more likely to be storgic, pragma or agapic than men. Of the three in this study, the greatest

91 difference was in agape, though opposite to the Hendrick and Hendrick study, the South African sample contained more agapic men than women. Although statistically the difference in the amount of agapic men and women is not significant, the trend is strong enough to be noteworthy, and it appears to confirm the cross-cultural study by Murstein, Merighi and Vyse (1991). They compared lovestyles in France and America and interestingly also found men from both countries to be more agapic than their female counterparts.

6.6 Hypothesis 6 6.6.1 Duration and Storge There was no evidence in this study, of the trend for relationships to become storge as they evolve in the long-term. Lee (1976) speculated that lovestyles might go through phases to some extent. That is, an individual may be ludic while dating, become eros whilst courting, and finally emerge as a storge after several years of marriage. It was decided to test this hypothesis by examining if there was a correlation between duration of marriage and storge. The logic of this is that as couples spend year after year together the relatively unstable passion of the early years is replaced by a more mature friendship. Gratefully this hypothesis holds no water, and passion could endure through the life of a relationship until the very end. The very high endorsement of storge, indicated by the means in Table 5.2, does indicate that a core element of friendship seems to be prevalent in many marriages.

6.6.2 Duration and Dyadic Adjustment There was no relationship between the duration of a marriage and the satisfaction of its partners. There exists a notion that enduring marriages would result in couples who are better adjusted. If a marriage is to survive for many years, one would imagine that the marriage is working and that the couple have more significantly adapted to the demands of living together than newlyweds or recently married couples. The results are therefore a little surprising and imply that many marriages may endure without particularly satisfied individuals. It

92 could suggest that many couples simply remain together regardless of their difficulties.

6.7 Conclusion The South African sample did not emerge with any true ludic or pragma lovestyle individuals, whilst mania was also conspicuously under-represented. Although this limited the comparisons of these groups with those found in other countries, it may have also reflected something of the situation concerning South Africans and marriage. One explanation is that people from the low frequency groups marry in smaller proportion to other lovestyles. This could make sense for ludic individuals, who are more intent on nurturing a range of strategic relationships. Pragma and mania could however be a rarity in any South African sample including unmarried individuals. Hendrick and Hendrick (1988) lend support to the low concentrations of mania by indicating that manic traits are only generally aroused during crisis periods in relationships, for example as they begin. Given the relatively stable nature of married couples, support of manic traits could thus be expected.

Importantly, as discussed earlier, there still remains an element of each lovestyle in each individual's profile, and no lovestyle was totally rejected by either gender. The high proportion of male agape in the sample could indicate that more South African men than would have been expected are devoted and supportive, however the overall results would suggest that white South Africans love much the same as their counterparts abroad.

93 Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusions.

All real living is meeting.

Martin Buber - I and Thou

7.1 Introduction Given the narrow racial boundaries of the study, any extrapolations of the results should only be made to white South Africans. Even within this sector however caution must be exercised, as the sample came only from Gauteng. Although a sample from Gauteng could indicate general trends in other provinces, the group was primarily from the large metropolitan areas. A further source of contamination could have been the skewness in the sample for couples who are relatively well adjusted. Although ideally a diverse spread of dyadic adjustments and other demographics are desirable, the somewhat skewed histogram of dyadic adjustment scores might suggest that unhappy couples are more reticent to complete questionnaires. Although there was a sub-group of couples with less than optimal dyadic adjustment scores, there seems to have been a greater propensity for better adjusted couples to partake in the study. On the positive side the study contained a comprehensive range of married couples. There was diversity in terms of durations of marriage, ranging from 6 months to over 40 years. There was diversity of age, ranging from 20 to 75, and a fair mix of the two main white population groups.

7.2 Limitations of the Study As already mentioned, the sample was too narrow both racially and geographically to be extrapolated to the whole of South Africa. Certainly

94 any inferences from the study could only be made with regard to urbanised, English and Afrikaans speaking whites.

The smallish sample size, although statistically relevant was a limitation as well. A larger sample might have included individuals who displayed some of the lovestyles which appear more rarely amongst married couples, like ludus and mania.

Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale has been criticised on several counts (Norton, 1983; Trost, 1985), and may distort the components of marital satisfaction in its one dimensional total. Several new measures have been designed, and a study such as this might also profit from more recent research and measures.

7.3 Discussion of Findings Given the provisos above, it remains somewhat gratifying that several of the findings match those done abroad. Very broadly speaking South Africans would seem to love in very much the same way as their overseas counterparts. For example eros and agape seem to be prime ingredients in most healthy relationships. This result appears in several other studies, including Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) and Levy and Davis (1988). In a comparison of several models Hendrick and Hendrick (1988) argue that eros equates well with Sternberg's (1988b) consumate love, a consolidation of passion, intimacy and commitment, whilst eros and agape were also correlated most highly with Shaver and Hazan's (1988) secure attachment. There thus appears to be a commonality of themes, which, whatever names the various models use, could be referring to similar core entities. Similarly, the absence of ludus in the sample is consistent with evolutionary theory (Buss, 1986) which indicates that a

95 main criteria for both partners is exclusivity. Any indications in a relationship of compromises in that regard would steer the other partner away. This could certainly go some way to explaining the low incidence of marriages involving a ludic partner. One might have expected a higher incidence of pragma, since Buss (1988) indicates the very strategic components both males and females seek out for their long-term relationships. However it appears, that to most people this type of practical strategising operates on a more subtle and covert level, and hence people may not be aware of it. Indeed many individuals might even prefer to think that they married for more romantic reasons than an assessment of someone's resources, as a practical search is regarded by many as not being love at all (Aron and Westbay, 1996). Not surprisingly Table 5.2 indicates that although only a sprinkling of individuals manifested as dominant pragma, the average means indicate at least some degree of practical decisions regarding love are made by most people.

White South African men and women occupy roughly analogous proportions of the same lovestyles. That is there are similar percentages of eros, storge, ludus etc. The one difference would appear to be mostly with Agape, where men are in the majority, even though not to the extent of statistical significance. This could suggest that more white South African men than might be expected are dutiful and devoted, more so than their wives. There is no statistical difference in the means of male dyadic adjustment and female dyadic adjustment. White South African men and women, as one would expect, have no inequalities in their extent of marital satisfaction. In a similar vein, marriages, unlike wine, do not mature as they get older. On the other hand the corollary is also true, that is, they do not as a rule tend to get worse as they endure. Somewhat surprisingly there does appear to be a statistically significant chance of couples

96 marrying someone of the same lovestyle. This does however conform to Epstein and Guttman's (1984) assertion that during mate selection, individuals tend to seek out partners with similar traits and values. From the above it would seem that on the whole the white South African population have reasonably satisfying relationships, involving significant elements of loyalty, passion and devotion. There is a low tolerance in these marriages for obsessive, possessive or conniving behaviour. In a similar vein although practical considerations of who to marry would almost always apply to some extent, there is an aversion to a "shopping- list" execution of finding the right partner. In this matter, white South Africans would tend to be substantially romantic, and although many might endorse the idea that your partner should be your friend and confident to some extent, their marriage criteria would more likely be far more quixotic.

7.4 Commonality of Models The models of love outlined in this study have all been demonstrated to have at least some degree of viability (Sternberg , 1988; Hazan and Shaver ,1990; Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Hendrick and Hendrick, 1994). Certainly, although there are no short answers to the question "What is love ?", there are some tidy explanations, Lee's (1976) volume being just one of them. There is also an increasing trend towards finding commonality between all the prominent models of love, and with that a greater and greater awareness of love's multidimensionality. Undoubtedly, lovestyles, attachment, triangular love and the biology of love are all connected, and it would be useful to establish those connections. Some have already been worked out, for example Levy and Davis (1988) reported earlier (see 3.4.6.1), whilst others are yet to commence. There have also been attempts to examine what love is and factor analyse the various models

97 down to fundamental constructs. In this regard Hendrick and Hendrick (1991) found five core elements, namely: Passionate love Closeness and the absence of conflict Ambivalence-mania Secure nonavoident attachment Practical sensible love These are similar to and could probably be equated to some extent with those found by Aron and Westbay (1996) : Passion Intimacy Commitment (Note although these have the same labels as Sternberg's (1986) elements, they are not identical). Beall and Sternberg (1995) take a different approach, and suggest that romantic love as a construct is too personal and culturally determined to effectively pin down. They imply that people learn what love is, create a mental model of what to expect in terms of feelings, thoughts and actions, then measure their own feelings, thoughts and actions against those mental models. This is how individuals determine whether they are in love or not (Beall and Sternberg, 1995). In other words people know they are in love because their culture tells them so. In this context love is an amorphous, elusive entity (Hendrick and Hendrick (1991, p. 793) call it "unruly"), and extrememly difficult to define. Beall and Sternberg, suggest that there is little point therefore in trying to define it, and state that regardless of its definition, the main knowns are the following four elements: A beloved - someone to love The feelings that accompany love

98 The thoughts that accompany love The actions between the two people in love Beyond that however they consider the experience to be too variable, and subjected to the ravages of time, place, culture and personal experience, to narrow down. Therefore although love may be a universal construct and biologically inherent in the species, it really might mean many different things to many different people.

In general, lovestyles can be a useful indicator for couples already married or considering getting married. Lee's model contains useful information regarding how an individual loves, and it can be determined qualitatively and quantitatively how this matches with their partners lovestyle. It seems feasible therefore that the combination of the Love Attitude Scale and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale could be used as pre- or post-marital tools.

7.5 Recommendations for Further Research It would be informative to explore whether some of the lovestyles which did not appear in the married sample, would be present with unmarried couples. A study with a similar demographic sample might answer many questions about the general presence of the various lovestyle types in both sectors. It might also cast some light on how lovestyles change with time. Alternatively, a longitudinal design following a group of people for several years before and into marriage could highlight the process of lovestyle fluidity. Changes in dyadic adjustment would also be telling once the couple entered wedlock, and could indicate how both lovestyles and dyadic adjustment move together through time and through various situations. The question regarding duration of marriage

99 and dyadic adjustment, which this study attempted, could also be more comprehensively answered with this type of design.

Important future research in a South African context, would be a comparison of lovestyles across a broad spectrum of racial and cultural groups. It would be interesting to capture an essence of the marital subtleties that prevail in South Africa's melting pot, and this could not be done without a comprehensive diverse sample representing all the major groups in the country.

The study only dealt with heterosexual relationships, however the model of love could possibly fit equally well in same sex relationships. Further research comparing the lovestyles of same sex and opposite sex couples would also be of academic and pragmatic interest.

7.6 Final Word Although there are many elegant theories and models of love which attempt to understand how relationships begin, maintain themselves and end, there is a sense that no matter how much is discovered and explained, there will always be something intangible that remains. Psychologists and the host of other social scientists now taking up the challenge, may increasingly narrow down the factors which make liking, loving, caring and loathing knowable. However there appears to be non- Newtonian elements to whom the laws of emotional physics are too linear and restrictive to obey, and it is finally these sub-atomic particles (or waves) which create the unknowability and incomprehensibility of the human factor. Love and its co-hosts are more profound than the product of their explainable types, and greater than the sum of their academic parts. This is not a tragedy for scientists, but rather the way it should be,

100 because even if everything else in the universe eventually becomes known, Love should forever remain a beautiful mystery.

"So far as love or affection is concerned, psychologists have failed in their mission. The little we know about love does not transcend simple observation, and the little we write about it has been better written by poets and novelists."

Harry Harlow - 1958 Presidential address to the American Psychological Association

101 Reference List.

Acker, M & Davis, M.H. (1992). Intimacy, passion and commitment in adult romantic relationships: A test of the Triangular theory of Love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 9, 21-50.

Adams, B.N. (1988). Fifty years of family research: What does it mean ? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50,5-17.

Adler, N.L. & Hendrick, S.S. (1991). Relationship between contraceptive behavior and love attitudes, sex attitudes and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling and Development. 70, 302- 308.

Ahuvia, A.C. & Adelman, M.B. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 54, 452-463.

Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist 44(4), 709-716.

Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist 46(4), 333-341.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Aron, A. & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the Prototype of Love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70(3), 535-551.

Bailey, J.M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y. & Gladue, B.A.(1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionary relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66(6), 1081-1093.

Bartholomew, K. (1994). Assessment of individual differences in adult attachment. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 23-27.

Beall, A.E. & Sternberg, R.J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 12(3), 417-438.

Belsky, J & Cassidy, J.(1994). Attachment and close relationships: an individual-difference perspective. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 27-30.

Berardo, F.M. (1990). Trends and directions in family research in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 809-817.

Berne, E. (1975). What do you say after you say hello ? London: Corgi.

Berschied, E. & Walster, E.H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Publishing company.

102 Betzig, L.(1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross cultural study. Current Anthropology. 30(5) , 654 -676.

Borrello, G.M & Thompson, B.(1990a). A note regarding the validity of Lee's typology of love. The Journal of Psychology. 124 (6), 639-644.

Borrello, G.M & Thompson, B.(1990b). An hierarchical analysis of the Hendrick- Hendrick Measure of Lee's typology of love. The Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5(5) , 327-342.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1981). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. New York: Methuen.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The Origins of attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology. 28(5) , 759-775.

Buss, D.M.(1988a). The evolutionary biology of love. In Sternberg, R.J. & Barnes, M.L. The Psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Buss, D.M.(1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54(4), 616-628.

Buss, D.M. & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50(3), 559-570.

Buss, D.M. & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review. 100(2), 204-232.

Central Statistical Services (1986). South African Statistics Pretoria: Government Printer.

Central Statistical Services (1991). South African Statistics Pretoria: Government Printer.

Charlton, RJ.(1996). A model of counselling for the training of lay counsellors. Unpublished dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.

Crous, J.J. & Pretorius, H.G.(1994). Faktore wat huweliksmaat-seleksie beinvloed: 'n Vergelyking tussen eerste en tweede huwelike. Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif. 3 5(1) , 101-108.

Crowell, J.A. & Waters, E. (1994). Bowlby's theory grown up: The role of attachment in adult love relationships. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 31-34.

Darwin, C (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.

103 Davis, K.E. & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love Styles and relationship quality: A contribution to validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 4, 409-428.

DeMaris, A. & Leslie, G.R. (1984). Cohabitation with a future spouse: Its influence upon marital satisfaction and communication. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 46(1), 77- 84.

Dion, K.L. & Dion, K.K. (1993). Gender and ethnocultural comparisons in styles of love. Psychology of Woman Quarterly. 17, 463-473.

Duck, S. (1994). Attaching meaning to attachment. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 35-37.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I (1971). Love and hate: On the natural history of basic behavior patterns. London: Methuen & Co.

Epstein, E. & Guttman, R. (1984). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory and outcome. Social Biology. 31(3), 243-278.

Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58(2), 281-291.

Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A Reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49, 797-809.

Gittins, D (1985). The family in question: Changing households and familiar ideologies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Glick, P. (1988). Fifty years of family demography: A record of social change. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50, 861-873.

Greenfield, S.M.(1973). Love: Some reflections by a social anthropologist. In Curtin, M.E. Symposium on love. New York: Behavioral Publications.

Hatfield, E. & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence. 9,383-410.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualised as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52(3), 511-524.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and Work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(2), 270-280.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1994a). Attachment as an organisational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 1-22.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1994b). Deeper into attachment theory. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 70-79.

Hecht, M.L., Marston, P.J. & Larkey, L.K. (1994). Love ways and relationship quality in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 11, 25-43.

104 Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50(2), 392-402.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S & Adler, N.L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54(6), 980-988.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1988). Lovers wear rose colored glasses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 5, 161-183.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56(5) , 784-794.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1990). A relationship-specific version of the Love Attitude Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 5(4), 239-254.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1991). Dimensions of love: A sociobiological interpretation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 10(2) , 206-230.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. (1994). Attachment theory and close adult relationships. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 38-41.

Kamo, Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: A comparison of the United Sates and Japan. Journal of Social and Personal relationships. 10,551-568.

Kenrick, D.T., Sadalla, E.K., Groth, G.E. & Trost, M.R. (1990). Evolution, Traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality. 58(1),97- 116.

Kenrick, D.T., Groth, G.E., Trost, M.R. Sc Sadalla, E.K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social psychology. 64(6) ,951 -969.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: CBS College Publishing.

Kobak, R. (1994). Adult attachment: A personality or relationship construct. Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 43-44.

Lasswell, M. & Lobsenz, N.M. (1980). Styles of loving. New York: Ballantine Books.

Laswell, T.E. & Laswell, M.E. (1976). I love you but I'm not in love with you. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 38, 211-224.

Lee, J.A. (1976). The colors of love. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, J.A. (1988). Love-Styles. In Sternberg, R.J. & Barnes, M.L. The Psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

105 Leon, J.L., Parra, F. & Cheng, T.(1995). Love-styles among Latino community college students in Los Angeles. Psychological Reports. 77, 527-530.

Levy, M.B. & Davis, K.E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 5, 439-471.

Lewis, M. (1994). Does attachment imply a relationship or multiple relationships ? Psychological Inquiry. 5(1), 47-50.

Lykken, D.T. & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65(1), 56-68.

Mallandain, I. & Davies, M.F. (1994). The colours of love: Personality correlates of love styles. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 17(4), 557-560.

Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review. 98(2) 224-253.

Martin, J.D., Blair, G.E., Nevels, R. & Fitzpatrick, J.H. (1990). A study of the relationship of styles of loving and marital happiness. Psychological Reports. 66, 123-128.

Mathes, E.W. & Moore, C.L. (1985). Reik's complementarity theory of romantic love. Journal of Social Psychology. 125(3), 321-327.

Mellen, S.L.W (1981). The evolution of love. San Francisco: W.H Freeman and Company.

Morrow, G.D, Clark, E.M. & Brock K.F.(1995). Individual and partner lovestyles: Implications for the quality of romantic involvements. Journal of Social and personal Relationships. 12(3), 363-387.

Murstein, B.I., Merighi, J. R. & Vyse, S.A. (1991). Love Styles in the United States and France: a Cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 10(1), 37- 46.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45, 141-151.

Peele, S. (1988). Fools for love: The romantic ideal, psychological theory, and addictive love. In Sternberg, R.J. & Barnes, M.L. The Psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pretorius, H.G. (1988). N evaluering van n huweliksvoor-bereidingsprogram. Unpublished thesis, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.

Quale, G.R. (1988). A history of marriage systems. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Rechtein, J.G. & Fiedler, E. (1989). Contributions to psychohistory: XVI. A response about courtly love. Psychological Reports. 64, 1215-1220.

106 Richardson, D.R., Hammock, G.S., Lubben, T. & Mickler, S. (1989). The relationship between love attitudes and conflict responses. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 8(4), 430-441.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16(2), 265-273.

Rusbult, C.E., Onizuka, R.K. & Lipkus, I. (1993). What do we really want ?: Mental models of ideal romantic involvement explored through multidimensional scaling. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 29, 493-527.

Shaver, P. & Hazan, C. (1988). A Biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 5, 473-501.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C. & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment. In Sternberg, R.J. & Barnes, M.L. The Psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5), 971-980.

Simpson, J.A. & Gangestad, S.W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality. 60(1), 31-51.

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S. & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 62(3) , 434-446.

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, 15-28.

Spanier, G.B. (1985). Improve, refine, recast, expand, clarify - don't abandon. Journal of Marriage and the Family 4 7,1073-1074.

Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q. & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66(6), 1074-1080.

Sternberg, R.J. (1986). Triangular theory of love. Psychological Review. 93(2), 119-135.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988a). The Triangle of Love: intimacy, passion, commitment. New York: Basic Books.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988b). Triangulating love. In Sternberg, R.J. & Barnes, M.L. The Psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. & Grajek, S.(1984). The nature of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 7(2), 312-329.

Surra, C.A. (1990). Research and theory on mate selection and premarital relationships in the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52, 844-865.

107 Taraban, C.B. & Hendrick C. (1995). Personality perceptions associated with six styles of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 10(2), 453-461.

Thompson, B & Borrello, G.M. (1987). Concurrent validity of a love relationship scale. Educational and Psychological measurement. 47, 985-995.

Thompson, B Sc Borrello, G.M. (1992). Measuring second-order factors using confirmatory methods: An illustration with the Hendrick-Hendrick love instrument. Educational and Psychological measurement. 52, 69-77.

Toffler, A (1990). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.

Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M. & Lucca, N.(1988). Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self- ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54(2) 323-338.

Trost, J.E. (1985). "Abandon adjustment I". Journal of Marriage and the family. 47, 1072- 1073.

Tzeng, O.C.S (1993). Measurement of love and intimate relations. United States of America: Praeger Publishers.

Wenchun, C. & Cross, S.E. (1995). Taiwanese love styles and their association with self- esteem and relationship quality. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs. 121(3) 283-309.

Wetzel, C.G. & Insko, C.A. (1982). The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one ? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 18, 253-276.

Whitley, B. E.(1993). Reliability and aspects of the construct validity of Sternberg's Triangular Love Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 10, 475-480.

Williams, D. & Schill, T. (1994). Adult attachment, love styles, and self-defeating personality characteristics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 18, 253-276.

Yancey, G. & Berglass, S. (1991). Love styles and life satisfaction. Psychological Reports. 68, 883-890.

108 ANNEXURE A

Love Attitude Scale.

7iNNi.i. . .: . :.:..::i:.' . o• • .:: ... :. .. • .:.:.:.: .. 6*.• *00: ,, it: .I/4004 ::!i::::::::::::::::::: :. .::::::::-.• •-••••• ;i:::::::::,, My lover and I were attracted to each other 1 2 3 4 5 immediately after we first met. I try to keep my lover a little uncertain about 1 2 3 4 5 my commitment to him/her. It is hard to say exactly where friendship 1 2 3 4 5 ends and love begins. I consider what a person is going to become. 1 2 3 4 5 in lifebefore I commit myself to him/her. When things aren't right with my lover and 1 2 3 4 5 me, my stomach gets upset. I try to always help my lover through 1 2 3 4 5 difficult times. My lover and I have the right physical 1 2 3 4 5 "chemistry" between us. I believe that what my lover doesn't know 1 2 3 4 5 about me won't hurt him/her. Genuine love first requires caring for awhile. 1 2 3 4 5 I try to plan my life carefully before choosing 1 2 3 4 5 a lover. When my love affair breaks up, I get 1 2 3 4 5 so depressed that I have even thought of suicide. I would rather suffer than let my lover suffer. 1 2 3 4 5 Our lovemaking is very intense and 1 2 3 4 5 satisfying. I have sometimes had to keep two of my 1 2 3 4 5 lovers from finding out about each other. I expect to always be friends with the one I 1 2 3 4 5 love. It is best to love someone with a similar 1 2 3 4 5 background. Sometimes I get so excited about being in 1 2 3 4 5 love that I can't sleep. I cannot be happy unless I place my lover's 1 2 3 4 5 happiness before my own. :006 6 iiiral Ni40Ate* 04,0 sa s6 I feel that my lover and I were meant for 1 2 3 4 5 each other. I can get over lover affairs pretty easily and 1 2 3 4 5 quickly. The best kind of love grows out of a long 1 2 3 4 5 friendship. A main consideration in choosing a lover is 1 2 3 4 5 how he/she reflects on my family. When my lover doesn't pay attention to me, 1 2 3 4 5 I feel sick all over. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own 1 2 3 4 5 wishes to let my lover achieve his/hers. My lover and I became emotionally involved 1 2 3 4 5 rather quickly. My lover would get upset if he/she knew of 1 2 3 4 5 some of the things I've done with other people. Our friendship merged gradually into love 1 2 3 4 5 over time. An important factor in choosing a partner is 1 2 3 4 5 whether or not he/she will be a good parent. When I am in love, I have trouble 1 2 3 4 5 concentrating on anything else. Whatever I own is my lover's to use as 1 2 3 4 5 he/she chooses. My lover and I really understand each other. 1 2 3 4 5 When my lover gets too dependent on me I 1 2 3 4 5 want to back off a little. Love is really a deep friendship, not a 1 2 3 4 5 mysterious, mystical emotion. One consideration in choosing a partner is 1 2 3 4 5 how he/she will reflect on my career. I cannot relax if I suspected that my lover is 1 2 3 4 5 with someone else. When my lover gets angry with me, I still 1 2 3 4 5 love him/her fully and unconditionally. My lover fits my ideal standards of physical 1 2 3 4 5 beauty/handsomeness. I enjoy playing the"game of love" with a 1 2 3 4 5 number of ,different partners.

II My most satisfying love relationships have 1 2 3 4 5 developed from good friendships. Before getting very involved with anyone, I 1 2 3 4 5 try to figure out how compatible his/her hereditary background is with mine in case we ever have children. If my lover ignores me for a while, I 1 2 3 4 5 sometimes do stupid things to get his/her attention back. I would endure all things for the sake of my 1 2 3 4 5 lover.

III ANNEXURE B

Dear Participant

Thank you for participating in this study. The goal of this project is to add to the existing body of knowledge regarding the nature of Love. In the interests of science and research therefore, please answer the questions as honestly as possible. Please do not agonize over your answers, as your first most intuitive response is normally the truest one.

Unless specifically directed otherwise, keep your CURRENT marriage relationship in mind when answering the questions.

It is equally important that you answer the questionnaire independently, that is without consulting your partner.

Please be sure to answer ALL the questions on BOTH sides of the page.

Please fill out the questionnaire as soon as possible, and arrange to have it returned, by mail or by hand, as soon as possible, in the envelope provided.

If there are any questions regarding this project you are welcome to contact me at 837-5211 (W) or 485-2653 (H).

Once again many thanks,

Hilton Rudnick Intern Counselling Psychologist (R.A.U)

Please tick the appropriate ❑ below.

How long have you been married ? Years Months

Is this your first marriage ? Yes ❑ No ❑

Age: Years

Gender: Male ❑ Female ❑

Home language: English ❑ Afrikaans ❑

IV Love Attitude Scale.

Please answer the questions below marking a cross (X) on the appropriate number. For Example: A. I enjoy ice-cream 1 2 3 4 5

Miidei*fi ari

. .. My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my 1 2 3 4 5 commitment to him/her. It is hard to say exactly where friendship ends 1 2 3 4 5 and love begins. I consider what a person is going to become in 1 2 3 4 5 life before I commit myself to him/her. When things aren't right with my partner and me, 1 2 3 4 5 my stomach gets upset. I try to always help my partner through difficult 1 2 3 4 5 times. My partner and I have the right physical 1 2 3 4 5 "chemistry" between us. I believe that what my partner doesn't know about 1 2 3 4 5 me won't hurt him/her. Genuine love first requires caring for awhile. 1 2 3 4 5 I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing a 1 2 3 4 5 partner. When previous relationships ended, I got so 1 2 3 4 5 depressed that I even thought of suicide. I would rather suffer than let my partner suffer. 1 2 3 4 5 Our lovemaking is very intense and satisfying. 1 2 3 4 5 In the past, I sometimes had to keep two of my 1 2 3 4 5 lovers from finding out about each other. I expect to always be friends with the one I love. 1 2 3 4 5 It is best to love someone with a similar 1 2 3 4 5 background. Sometimes I get so excited about being in love 1 2 3 4 5 that I can't sleep. I cannot be happy unless I place my partner's 1 2 3 4 5 happiness before my own. I feel that my partner and I were meant for each 1 2 3 4 5 other.

V .. . .. ...... . . .. . .. . . ...... . . . . ...... a Oa...... a ftft. .ft4.0 0r _9 fie:;:;: ::::::g::::::::::::: ..'i':::::::*::i"' i'i'i' , ' ::::::::::::::: Before being married, I could get over lovers 1 2 3 4 6. pretty easily and quickly. The best kind of love grows out of a long 1 2 3 4 5 friendship. A main consideration in choosing a partner is 1 2 3 4 5 how he/she reflects on my family. When my partner doesn't pay attention to me, I 1 2 3 4 5 feel sick all over. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to 1 2 3 4 5 let my partner achieve his/hers. My partner and I became emotionally involved 1 2 3 4 5 rather quickly. My partner would get upset if he/she knew of 1 2 3 4 5 some of the things I've done with other people. Our friendship merged gradually into love over 1 2 3 4 5 time. An important factor in choosing a partner is 1 2 3 4 5 whether or not he/she will be a good parent. When I am in love, I have trouble concentrating 1 2 3 4 5 on anything else. Whatever I own is my partner's to use as he/she 1 2 3 4 5 chooses. My partner and I really understand each other. 1 2 3 4 5 When my partner gets too dependent on me I 1 2 3 4 5 want to back off a little. Love is really a deep friendship, not a 1 2 3 4 5 mysterious, mystical emotion. One consideration in choosing a partner is how 1 2 3 4 5 he/she will reflect on my career. Before marriage, I could not relax if I suspected 1 2 3 4 5 that my lover was with someone else. When my partner gets angry with me, I still love 1 2 3 4 5 him/her fully and unconditionally. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical 1 2 3 4 5 beauty/handsomeness. Before marriage, I used to enjoy playing the 1 2 3 4 5 "game of love with a number of different partners. My most satisfying love relationships have 1 2 3 4 5 developed from good friendships.

VI scat

Before getting very involved with anyone, I try to 2 3 4 5 figure out how compatible his/her hereditary background is with mine in case we ever have children. If my partner ignores me for a while, I 1 2 3 4 5 sometimes do stupid things to get his/her attention back. I would endure all things for the sake of my 1 2 3 4 5 partner.

VII ANNEXURE C Dyadic Adjustment Scale.

Most people have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following list. Please mark ON the appropriate number. For example i) I like reading 6 5 4 3 2 1

Almost ()cuts- Fre- Almost Always Always ionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeDisagreeDisame

1. Handling family finances 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. Matters of recreation 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. Religious matters 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. Demonstrations of affection 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. Friends 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. Sex relations 6 5 4 3 2 1 7. Conventionality (Correct or 6 5 4 3 2 1 proper behaviour) 8. Philosophy of life 6 5 4 3 2 1 9. Ways of dealing with parents or 6 5 4 3 2 1 in-laws 10. Aims, goals, and things 6 5 4 3 2 1 believed important 11. Amount of time spent together 6 5 4 3 2 1

More All Most of often Occa- the time the time than not sionally Rarely Never 12. Do you confide in your mate ? 6 5 4 3 2 1 13. Do you ever regret that you 1 2 3 4 5 6 married ? (or became engaged) 14. How often do you and your partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 quarrel ? 15. How often do you and your mate 1 2 3 4 5 6 "get on each other's nerves?"

VIII Every Almost Every Occa- day every day week sionally Rarely ever 16. Do you kiss your mate ? 6 5 4 3 2 1

More of Very All of Most of them Some few of None them them than not of them them of them 17. Do you and your mate engage in 6 5 4 3 2 1 outside interests together ?

Almost Occas-- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 18. Making major decisions 6 5 4 3 2 1 19. Household tasks 6 5 4 3 2 1 20. Leisure time interests and activities 21. Career decisions

More All Most of often Occa- the time the time than not sionally Rarely Neve 22. How often do you discuss or 1 2 3 4 5 6 have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship ? 23. How often do you or your mate 1 2 3 4 5 6 leave the house after a fight ? 24. In general, how often do you 6 5 4 3 2 think that things between you and your partner are going well ?

IX Less than Once or Once or Once a twice a twice a Once More Never Month Month Week a day often

Have a stimulating exchange 1 2 3 4 5 6 of ideas Laugh together 1 2 3 4 5 6 Calmly discuss something 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work together on a project 1 2 3 4 5 6

The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point 4 represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please circle the dot which best describes the degree of happiness in your relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • • • •

Extremely Fairly A Little Happy Very Extremely Perfect Unhappy Unhappy MnHappy Happy Happy

Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship?

X I want desperately for my relationship to succeed and would go to almost any length to see that it does. I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do all I can to see that it does.

I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and will do my fair share to see that it does.

It would be nice if my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. It would be nice if it succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the relationship going. My relationship can never succeed, and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship going.

4 Thais All - Many Thanks 4

XI ANNEXURE D

Geagte Deelnemer

Dankie vir u deelname ann hierdie projek. Die doel van die studie is om `n bydrae to bestaande kennis aangaande die aard en wese van LIEFDE te liewer.

In die belang van wetenskaplike navorsing is dit dus belangrik dat u so eerlike as moontlik op die vrae sal antwword. Dit is onnodig om lank oor moontlike response na te dink, aangesien u eerste, mees intuitiewe repons normaalweg die naaste aan die waarheid is.

Tensy spesifiek anders vermeld, moet u u HUIDIGE huweliksverhouding in gedagte hou by die beantwoording van die vrae.

Dit is belangrik dat u die vraelys onafhanklik sal voltooi - dit is sonder raadpleging van u maat.

Antwoord assesblief ALLE vrae.

Vul asseblief die vraelys so you as moontlik in en pos dit in die ingeslote koevert terug.

Indien u enige navrae omtrent die projek het, is u welkom om my te kontak by 837-5211 (W) or 485-3219 (H).

Weereens bai danie vir u deelname,

Hilton Rudnick Intern Voorligtingsielkundige (R.A.U)

Merk asseblief die toepaslike ❑ :

Hoe lank is u getroud ? Jare Maande

Is dit u eerste huwelik ? Ja ❑ Nee ❑

Ouderdom: Jare

Geslag: Manlik ❑ Vroulik ❑

Huistaal: Afrikaans ❑ Engels ❑

XII Liefdeshoudingskaal.

Beantwoord asseblief die onderstaande vrae deur 'n kruisie (X) te maak op die toepaslike nommer. Byvoorbeeld: A. Ek hou van roomys 1 2 3 4 5

, m m .5fiara lam Atteranig Ek en my Iewensmaat was onmiddelik tot 1 2 3 4 5 mekaar aangetrokke met on eersteontmoeting. Ek probeer om my lewensmaat 'n bietjie 1 2 3 4 5 onseker te hou ontrent my verbintenis tot hom/haar. Dit is moelik om presies te se waar 1 2 3 4 5 vriendskap eindig en liefde begin. Ek neem in ag wat 'n persoon in die lewe 1 2 3 4 5 gaan bereik voordat ek myself tot hom/haar verbind. My maag raak ongesteld wanneer dinge 1 2 3 4 5 tussen my en my Iewensmaat nie reg is nie. Ek probeer altyd om my Iewensmaat deur 1 2 3 4 5 moelike tye te help. Ek en my Iewensmaat het die regte soort 1 2 3 4 5 fisiese "chemiese reakse" tussen ons. Ek glo dat die dinge wat my lewensmaat 1 2 3 4 5 nie van my weet nie geen skade sal berokken nie. Opregte liefde vereis dat daar vir 'n rukkie 1 2 3 4 5 eers omgegee moet word. Ek het probeer om my lewe versigtig te 1 2 3 4 5 beplan voordat ek 'n lewensmaat gekies het. Met die beeindiging van my vorige 1 2 3 4 5 verhoudings, het ek so depressief gevoel dat ek selfs selfmoord oorweeg het. Ek sal eerder self ly as om my 1 2 3 4 5 lewensmaat te laat ly. Wanneer ons liefdemaak is dit bale 1 2 3 4 5 intens en bevredigend.

XIII 14e ilia In die verlede moes ek soms sorg dat 1 2 3 4 5 twee van my minnaars nie van mekaar uitvind nie. Ek verwag om altyd vriende te wees met 1 2 3 4 5 die persoon wat ek lief het. Dit is die beste om iemand van 'n 1 2 3 4 5 soortgelyke agtergrond lief te he. Ek is soms so opgewonde wanneer ek 1 2 3 4 5 verlief is dat ek nie kan slaap nie. Ek kan nie gelukkig wees nie, tensy ek 1 2 3 4 5 en my Iewensmaat se geluk voor myne stel. Ek voel dat ek en my Iewensmaat vir 1 2 3 4 5 mekaar bedoel is. Voordat ek getroud is kon ek redelik 1 2 3 4 5 malkik en vinnig oor liefdesverhoudings kom. Die beste soort Iiefde groei vanuit 'n lang 1 2 3 4 5 vriendskap. Wanneer ek 'n maat kies, is 'n 1 2 3 4 5 hoofoorweging die indruk wat hy/sy by my familie skep. Ek voel heeltemaal siek wanneer my 1 2 3 4 5 lewensmaat nie aandag aan my gee nie. Ek is gewoonlik bereid om my eie wense 1 2 3 4 5 op te offer sodat my lewensmaat syne/hare kan vervul. Ek en my Iewensmaat het redelik vinnig 1 2 3 4 5 emosioneel betrokke geraak. My Iewensmaat sal ontsteld raak as hy/sy 1 2 3 4 5 moet weet van sommige van die dinge wat ek met ander mense gedoen het. Met tyd het ons vriendskap geleidelik 1 2 3 4 5 gegroei tot liefde. Wanneer ek 'n Iewensmaat kies, is 'n 1 2 3 4 5 belangrike faktor of hy/sy 'n goei ouer sal wees of nie. Wanneer ek verlief is, is dit vir my moelik 1 2 3 4 5 om op enigiets anders te knsentreer.

XIV stotii:

Alles wat ek besit, is ook daar vir my 1 2 3 4 5 lewensmaat om te gebruik net soos hy/sy verkies. Ek en my Iewensmaat verstaan mekaar 1 2 3 4 5 werklik goed. Wanneer my lewensmaat te afhankiik 1 2 3 4 5 van my word, wil ek 'n bietjie onttrek. Liefde is eintlik 'n diep vriendskap en nie 1 2 3 4 5 'n misterieuse mistieke emosie nie. Een van die faktore om te oorweeg by die 1 2 3 4 5 keuse van 'n lewensmaat, is om te kyk hoe hy/sy by my loopbaan sal inpas. Voor ek getroud is, kon ek nie ontspan as 1 2 3 4 5 ek 'n vermoede gehad het, dat my minnaar saam met iemand anders was nie. Wanneer my lewensmaat kwaad word vir 1 2 3 4 5 my, het ek hom/haar teeds ten voile en onvoorwaardelik lief. My lewensmaat pas by my ideale 1 2 3 4 5 standaarde van fisiese skoonheid/aantreklikheid. Voor ek getroud is, het ek dit geniet on 1 2 3 4 5 die "spel van die liefde" met verskei minnaars te speel. My mees bevredigende 1 2 3 4 5 liefdesverhoudings het uit goeie vriendskappe ontwikkel. Voordat ek te betrokke raak by enige 1 2 3 4 5 iemand probeer ek eers vasstel hoe versoenbaar sy/haar genetiese agtergrond met myne is, ingeval ons ooit kinders sou he. Wanneer my Iewensmaat my vir 'n rukkie 1 2 3 4 5 ignoreer, doen ek soms belaglike dinge om sy/haar aandag terug te kry. Ek sal alles verdra ter wille van my 1 2 3 4 5 Iewensmaat.

XV ANNEXURE E

Die Verhoudingsaanpassingskaal.

Die meeste mense ervaar verskille in hulle verhoudings. Toon asseblief die mate van ooreenstemming of verskil tussen u en u maat, in elke onderstaande item, aan.

Stem Stem byna Verskil altyd altyd Verskil Verskil byna Versl saam saam soms dikwels altyd altyi

1. Hanteer gesamentlike geldsake 6 5 4 3 2 2. Aangeleenthede van ontspanning 6 5 4 3 2 3. Godsdiensaangeleenthede 6 5 4 3 2 4. Vertoon van gevoelens 6 5 4 3 2 5. Vriende 6 5 4 3 2 6. Seksuele aangeleenthede 6 5 4 3 2 7. Korrekte gedrag 6 5 4 3 2 8. Lewensfilosofie 6 5 4 3 2 9. Hantering van ouers en 6 5 4 3 2 skoonouers 10. Doelstellings 6 5 4 3 2 11. Hoeveelheid tyd saam spandeer 6 5 4 3 2

Amper Altyd altyd Dikwels Soms Min N

12. Is jou maat jou vertrouling ? 6 5 4 3 2 13. Was jy al ooit spyt dat jy 1 2 3 4 5 verloof geraak of getrou het ? 14. Hoe dikwels baklei jy en jou 1 2 3 4 5 maat ? 15. Hoe dikwels werk jy en jou 1 2 3 4 5 maat op mekaar se senuwees ?

Elke Amper Elke du elke dag week Soms Min III 16. Soen jy jou maat ? 6 5 4 3 2 1

XVI Alma! Meestal Baie Soms Min Geen 17. Neem jy en jou maat saam 6 5 4 3 2 1 aan buitemuurse belangstellings deel ?

Stem Stem byna Verskil

altyd altyd Verskil Verskil byna Versk , saam saam sours dikwels altyd altyd Die neem van belangrike 6 5 4 3 2 1 besluite Huishoudelike take 6 5 4 3 2 1 Vryetydbestedinge 6 5 4 3 2 1 Loopbaanbesluite 6 5 4 3 2 1

Meeste van Aktyd die tvd Mae Soms Min M4

22. Hoe dikwels bespreek of 1 2 3 4 5 oorweeg julle egskeiding of om die verhouding to beeindig? 23. Hoe dikwels verlaat jy en 1 2 3 4 5 jou maat die huis / vertrek na In rusie ? 24. Hoe dikwels dink jy dat 6 5 4 3 2 dinge tussen jou en jou maat goed gaan ?

XVII Minder as Een of Een of Een Meei een keer twee maal twee maal keer een Nooi per maand per maand per week elwia per

25.`n Stimulerende uitruil van gedagtes

Bespreek iets op kalm wyse Werk saam aan `n projek

Die punte op die onderste streep verteenwoordig grade van geluk in jul verhouding. Die middelpunt 4 verteenwoordig die graad van geluk van die meeste verhoudings. Omkring asseblief die punt wat die graad van geluk in jul verhouding die beste beskryf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . . ' • Baie Taamlik 'n Bietjie Gelukkig Baie Uiters Perfek Ongelukkig Ongelukkig Ongelukkig Gelukkig Gelukkig

XVIII

30. Watter een van die volgende stellings beskryf die beste hoe jy voel oor die toekoms van jou verhouding ? Omkring asseblief die gepaste syfer.

Ek wil baie graag he my verhouding moet slaag, en 6 sal enigiets doen om te sien dat dit slaag.

Ek wil baie graag he my verhouding moet slaag, en 5 sal alles in my vermoe doen om dit te bewerkstellig. Ek wil baie graag he verhouding moet slaag, en sal 4 my deel doen om dit te bewerkstellig.

Dit sal aangenaam wees as my verhouding slaag, 3 maar ek kan nie meer doen as wat ek nou doen om die verhouding te laat voortgaan nie. Dit sou aangenaam wees as my verhouding slaag, 2 maar ek weier om enigiets meer te doen as wat ek tans doen om die verhouding te laat voertgaan. My verhouding kan nooit slaag nie, en daar is niks 1 meer wat ek kan doen om die verhouding te laat voortgaan nie.

A Dit is al - Baie Dankie A

XIX